Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

On-the-run Terrorists

Richard Benyon: If he will make a statement on his plans to deal with on-the-run terrorists returning to Northern Ireland.

Tobias Ellwood: If he will make a statement on his plans to deal with on-the-run terrorists returning to Northern Ireland.

Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.

Peter Hain: It is the Government's goal to close the door on Northern Ireland's paramilitary past; otherwise, the future will constantly be dogged, disrupted and dragged back to the past. Following the early release of paramilitary prisoners, it became clear that there was a group of suspects in an anomalous position. The status of those on the run could not be effectively resolved in the same way. For that reason, the Government agreed to deal with the outstanding issue of those suspected of terrorism-related offences committed before the Belfast agreement. It is an issue that still remains to be resolved, as is the position of those who may in the future be prosecuted for terrorism-related offences committed before the Belfast agreement. That is the background to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
	Since the Bill was introduced, I have received written and face-to-face representations from a number of organisations and individuals, including victims, police staff associations, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and political parties.

Richard Benyon: We are looking forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say on this subject in his statement later today, but does he understand that the depth of opposition to the Bill is evident not only in all the sectarian parties and political parties in this House? A poll today in the Belfast Telegraph shows that there is widespread opposition to the proposals across the community in Northern Ireland. To cap it all, we now hear that Sinn Fein-IRA have withdrawn their support for the Bill. Is it not time that what the spokesman for the Police Federation for Northern Ireland called this "odious piece of legislation" was put to rest and forgotten completely?

Peter Hain: I agree that the Bill has received widespread opposition. There is no question about that: the Belfast Telegraph poll shows what many of us already know is in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland—an overwhelming rejection of the Bill. It is also true that all the political parties now oppose it, but the problem will still need to be resolved through legislation.

Richard Benyon: Why?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asks why, but he will recall that more than 400 paramilitary prisoners were released after the Belfast agreement. That process was endorsed in a referendum by the people of Northern Ireland. Of that total number, fewer than one eighth are now in the anomalous position of having been outside UK jurisdiction for similar offences and of being unable to emerge without facing prosecution, undergoing the criminal process and serving criminal sentences. That is the problem and it will not go away, whatever he says and whatever the opposition to the Bill.However, I agree that the opposition is widespread, and I do not doubt its sincerity.

Tobias Ellwood: Last year, the Government proposed to detain suspected terrorists without charge for 90 days, but now they are proposing to let on-the-run terrorists get off scot free, without having even one day in court. Will the Secretary of State say who is in favour of the Bill? The Opposition are not in favour of it, and neither are the Army or the police. The victims are certainly not in favour of it and not one political party—including Sinn Fein, as we have just heard—supports it. Surely the Bill should now be thrown out?

Peter Hain: As I have said, I shall make a statement at 12.30 pm, when I shall answer some of the detailed questions about the Bill. I shall also deal with other issues in connection with Northern Ireland. I do not doubt that there is widespread opposition to the Bill, but I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I put to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). This matter needs to be dealt with, but it goes further than the on-the-runs. There is also the question of those who might be uncovered and prosecuted, as a result of inquiries or of investigations that are currently being undertaken. They could face lengthy prison sentences, and it is conceivable that they could include members of the security forces. Either we want to move forward in Northern Ireland, or we want constantly to look back to the past—in some cases for offences committed 30, or even nearly 40, years ago.

Andrew Selous: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says that the Bill is incompatible with international human rights standards. What comment would the Secretary of State make about that, and will he ensure that any new provisions brought before the House are compatible with international human rights standards?

Peter Hain: The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr.   Hanson), will respond to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I said on introducing the Bill that it was compatible with the Human Rights Act, and I therefore do not think that that issue arises, but we are studying the letter very carefully.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the game is up on every argument that the Government have used on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill? The House was persuaded to give that Bill a Second Reading solely on the premise that the Government were honour bound to produce legislation because of deals with Sinn Fein in 2001 and 2003. Sinn Fein has since said that it wants the Bill withdrawn for its own reasons. All other parties have long called for it to be withdrawn for all sorts of reasons. Every class of victims' group in Northern Ireland finds the Bill deeply offensive. Opposition is not just widespread; it is deeply felt. Now that the Government are into the culture of respect, will they respect the wishes, sensitivities, rights and needs of the people of Northern Ireland—victims, in particular—withdraw the Bill and recover some credibility for themselves and for the House?

Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which he has made with great eloquence and conviction for many months now. We have listened carefully to the arguments that he and others have made, and I shall be making a statement at 12.30 pm. I repeat, however, that the issue will not go away. The House needs to recognise that, and that is the point that the Government have been making and the issue that I shall describe in some detail, among other things, at 12.30.

Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State indicate what is the morality of the Government's position? They entered into a dishonourable deal with a dishonourable organisation, which no longer wants them to honour that arrangement. Yet the Secretary of State still appears to be ready to proceed with the legislation. If he wants the matter dealt with, let it be dealt with as it should be—in the courts.

Peter Hain: As I have already said, but will repeat for the hon. Gentleman, I understand the point that he is making, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State spent some 27 hours in Committee and listened to many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and others. We have listened carefully, which is why I shall make a detailed statement at 12.30 pm.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that whatever his objections to the legislation, two things are clear: legislation is needed to resolve the issue, and the issue needs to be resolved—

Peter Robinson: No, it is not.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says not, but let me put a question to him. Let us take a constituent of his from one of the communities from which members of the security forces are drawn; there are many of those from his constituency and from the constituencies of other Members of his party, and I respect that, as those people have had a tough job to do over many years. Let us suppose that as a result of one of the inquiries, such as the Chief Constable's inquiry, or some other event, that person was prosecuted.

Nigel Dodds: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: No. I understand the point. Does the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) think that it would be right for such a member of the security forces—a servant of the Crown—to be treated differently from the paramilitary prisoners who did not serve their full sentences and were released after the Belfast agreement?

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that the Secretary of State's statement will introduce a period of reflection. While we all understand that, as he has repeatedly said, the issue will not go away, many of us feel that the instrument being used—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill—is probably not the way forward, bearing in mind that he persuaded his hon. Friends to support him in the Division Lobby on Second Reading very much on the basis that we all had to swallow some bitter pills and this was the way to gain progress particularly, if not exclusively, with the republicans. We now know that not a single party in Northern Ireland supports the Bill; may I hope that my right hon. Friend will therefore consider going back to the drawing board after a period of reflection?

Peter Hain: I assure my hon. Friend, whose views on this issue and in general I respect enormously, that when I make my statement he will have the answer to his questions and will find that I have listened to opinion in the House.

Patrick Cormack: That is rather a tantalising statement, and we shall have to wait.
	The Secretary of State has a deserved reputation as a champion of democratic values—

Peter Robinson: What?

Patrick Cormack: Oh, all his life, and he has made many mistakes.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that now that there is total opposition to the Bill, it should be consigned to the wastepaper basket?

Peter Hain: As I say, I will make a statement at 12.30 and the hon. Gentleman may even catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of this issue and of what I have to say about the future political process in Northern Ireland, it is right that all hon. Members have a chance to question me, rather than the few who have the chance now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has said on several occasions that he will make a statement later, so we will now move on to question No. 2.

Restorative Justice

James Duddridge: What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Policing Board about the introduction of community-based restorative justice systems.

Mark Lancaster: If he will make a statement on Government policy on community restorative justice in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Northern Ireland Policing Board on 1 November, and I met them on 5 December, to discuss the introduction of community-based restorative justice guidelines. The draft guidelines have now been published for consultation, and I look forward to receiving the considered views of the board and of other key stakeholders. The Government will take the results of the consultation fully into account in deciding on our next steps.

James Duddridge: The Minister said that the draft guidelines for community restorative justice were put out to consultation in December, but can he tell us why they contain no requirement for all groups to endorse Northern Ireland's police and criminal justice system? Should not that be a fundamental condition before any further development of restorative justice in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps go back to the guidelines and read them in detail, because he will find that the draft guidelines unambiguously specify that the involvement of the police and other statutory criminal justice organisations in the operation of the schemes is essential. There is no room for two-tier policing in Northern Ireland and we are committed to monitoring and developing those guidelines to ensure that the schemes that operate, independent of Government, are linked to the policing and criminal justice system. That is important. If the hon. Gentleman has comments to make on the guidelines, the consultation runs to the end of February and I would welcome his detailed comments.

Mark Lancaster: Will people with terrorist convictions be able to participate in the scheme?

David Hanson: The guidelines make it clear that no one currently involved in paramilitary or criminal activity should be involved in any scheme. One of the issues that we have put in the guidelines for consultation is the question whether individuals who have had criminal convictions in the past should be involved in the schemes. I am seeking views on that issue in the consultation, because some individuals may have criminal convictions from 30 or 35 years ago, are not now involved in criminality and may wish to be involved in those schemes. I will reflect on that issue when the consultation is completed.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give me an undertaking this morning that he will impress on the Policing Board the need for it to support the good and effective restorative justice schemes that already exist, such as the IMPACT scheme in North Down, of which I am enormously proud?

David Hanson: I know that the hon. Lady has several schemes in her constituency which are doing very positive work. She will know that recommendation 168 of the criminal justice review recommended that positive restorative justice schemes should operate. The intention of the guidelines is to lay down some minimum standards so that any schemes that are funded independently of Government operate at a standard that we would expect. I would hope that the Policing Board would make comments on the guidelines, but would also recognise the inherent value of restorative justice schemes to Northern Ireland for the prevention of crime in its communities.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister assure the House that the same vetting procedure will apply to those involved in restorative justice schemes as is used, for example, to assess personnel for the police, so that only people who believe in the rule of law are admitted to the schemes? That would give the community the confidence in the CRJ schemes that it does not have at present.

David Hanson: As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster), we have made it clear that nobody who is currently involved in any criminal or paramilitary activity should be involved in the schemes. We are consulting on the question whether individuals who have previous convictions should be involved in those schemes. As I said earlier, it is possible to have a criminal conviction from a considerable time ago that may or may not affect the involvement of an individual in the schemes today. That is one of the issues on which I seek views in the consultation and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will supply their views during the process.

Laurence Robertson: For a number of years, people have not been arrested for being members of the IRA. If they are members of the IRA will they be able to partake in the scheme?

David Hanson: As I have already said, the guidelines make it clear that nobody involved in paramilitary activity or criminality can be involved in the scheme. Membership of the IRA is involved in paramilitary activity, so I would want to reflect on that point, but it is clear to me that current involvement in paramilitary activity is not compatible with the operation of the scheme.

Lembit �pik: Can the Government categorically confirm that all restorative justice schemes will involve direct co-operation with the Police Service of Northern Ireland? The Minister says that no one involved with paramilitary organisations will be allowed to participate in the schemes, but he knows very well that not all people involved with paramilitary organisations actually have criminal convictions, or have been proved to have them, so how will he ensure that the restorative justice schemes operate within the law and not as a form of vigilantism with a sheriff's badge?

David Hanson: The guidelines that I am producing for consultation were not drawn up out of the blue; they were drawn up in conjunction with the PSNI, the criminal justice agencies and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. The criminal justice system and the police are integral to the operation of the schemes. At present, none of the schemes is funded by the Government, but they operate to support the reduction of crime in our communities. We have to ensure that there are minimum guidelines, and the minimum for us is that no paramilitary activity or criminality is involved and that individuals respect and comply with the rule of law and work with the agencies to tackle crime. That is central to our conditions for the guidelines. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Miss Widdecombe, there is far too much noise in the Chamber[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is not the only one; there are a few others.

Security

Eddie McGrady: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: We continue to see dramatic improvements in the security situation compared to the height of the troubles, with paramilitary-style attacks on a downward trend.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his abrupt reply. With reference to the announcement from the Secretary of State last week that he would bring forward a date for the legislation on the devolution of criminal justice powers to Northern Ireland, what action will the Minister and the Secretary of State take to restore confidence in the judicial and security systems, following revelations about the murky and dirty underworld of mutual spying by the Government and Sinn Fein? Following the abandonment of the Stormontgate trial, for what were widely believed to be political reasons, what will the Minister do to restore confidence that justice will be done, and seen to be done, in Northern Ireland?

Shaun Woodward: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been the policy of successive Administrations that the Government never comment specifically on security matters. None the less, there is no doubt that there was paramilitary intelligence gathering that the police acted to prevent. As a result of that operation, hundreds ofstolen documents were recovered, more than 1,000 people had to be warned and more than 30 million had to be spent on protective measures. The rule of law will be upheld in Northern Ireland and we are confident that the decision made independently by the prosecution authorities in relation to the issue was the right one and that it was in the public interest.

David Simpson: The Minister said that we continue to see improvements in Northern Ireland's security. Will he confirm to the House that there is a media recruitment drive by the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA in Northern Ireland at present?

Shaun Woodward: I am not able to comment specifically on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I point out that it is absolutely essential to recognise that comparing last year with the height of the troubles we continue to see downward numbers of paramilitary-style attacks. The security situation continues to improve, and in relation to the issue that he raised, people in Northern Ireland are able to live in greater security than they have enjoyed in recent years.

David Lidington: Does the Minister agree that the radical changes that were implemented in policing following the Patten report, and in the criminal justice system following the criminal justice review, rested on the assumption that everyone in Northern Ireland, especially those who aspired to serve in government in Belfast, would support the police force and the rule of law? Does he share my view that it is frankly intolerable that the republican movement should continue to demand a place in government while it refuses to support the police, refuses to recognise the courts and refuses to uphold the rule of law in the Province?

Shaun Woodward: We absolutely recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and we will continue to work with all political parties to ensure that everyone contributes to ensuring a climate in Northern Ireland in which everyone is signed up to policing and security.

David Lidington: rose[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the House be fair to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister who is replying? Far too many conversations are going on.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he will have seen the statement made by those in the provisional movement a few days ago that the publication of draft legislation to devolve policing and criminal justice to Stormont would not be enough for them to convene the special conference that is required for them to endorse policing and the courts in Northern Ireland. Will the Government maintain a very firm line and tell the republican movement that support for law and the police is a fundamental expectation of any party that expects to serve in government and that no more concessions will be forthcoming? It is time for the republicans to deliver.

Shaun Woodward: We absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is essential for all political parties to sign up and agree to policing and criminal justice matters. In fact, that is a matter of common sense. There can only be long-term security in Northern Ireland as long as everybody, including all political parties, signs up to policing.

International Profile

Mary Creagh: What steps he is taking to raise the international profile of Northern Ireland.

Angela Smith: Northern Ireland already has a good international profile maintained through trade missions and participation in international business, cultural and sporting events. We are continuing to build on the talents of the people of Northern Ireland and the fact that the economy is buoyant, with low unemployment and rising employment, productivity and exports.

Mary Creagh: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. What steps is she taking to enable small and bigger businesses in Northern Ireland to benefit from the opportunities that present themselves in the fast-growing economies of India and China?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend is right: there are two huge and fast-growing economies in China and India, and we need to be proactive to take advantage of them. I recently took a small delegation of businesses from Northern Ireland to China and opened our Shanghai office. A number of local businesses are going to India with Enterprise Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State has plans for a trade mission to India later this year. We are very proactive, but we must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the skills to take advantage of the investment. That is why the Secretary of State has launched our skills and science strategy.

Nigel Dodds: One of the best ways to promote the international profile of Northern Ireland is to emphasise the links between Belfast and the Titanic. At the moment, the last remaining White Star vessel afloat in the worldSS Nomadicis on sale and ready to go to the scrap heap. Will the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure give money to ensure that that important artefact is brought back to its home in Belfast, so that it can be used to promote the Province and the city of Belfast for future generations?

Angela Smith: Many of us would like to see the SS Nomadic came back to Northern Ireland. Although I am not the Minister with responsibility for culture, arts and leisure, I have met those responsible. I understand that a favourable loan was offered to the council to try to address the issue. We are working across Departments in partnership with the council to find out whether we can do something to help, but we must consider all the associated costs.

Alasdair McDonnell: What discussions have the Government had with the Irish Government about using the north-south bodies to promote Northern Ireland and, especially, the tourism and industry aspects of the all-Ireland economy?

Angela Smith: The matter is the subject of continued discussion among Ministers, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Dermot Ahern yesterday. We continue to have relationships between the north and south because great benefits can accrue to the economy through such events.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

John Mann: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11th January.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, may I say how sad we all were to learn of the death of Rachel Squire, the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, over the Christmas recess? She was a great servant to her constituents and won the respect of all who knew her for the brave and dignified way in which she fought her long illness. She will be deeply missed.
	Although he was no longer a Member of the House, I hope that I can also say how much we are all going to miss Tony Banks. He was an extraordinary character and a unique personality, and I know that he had many friends on both sides of the House.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

John Mann: On the one hand there is the Tory leader of Bassetlaw council who believes that antisocial behaviour orders should be used only as an absolute last resorthe is the kind of man who says that this law is all gimmickand, on the other hand, there are the hundreds of residents who pack my public meetings on antisocial behaviour and demand zero tolerance of thugs and bullies. I am with the people on this one. Is the Prime Minister, and, if so, will he hold to account those who fail to use fully the powers?

Tony Blair: I think that most people believe that the use of antisocial behaviour orders, the powers to close crack houses and the use of fixed penalty notices have had a huge impact where they have been used properly in local communities, obviously combined with extra numbers of police and community support officers. I strongly urge all local authorities and local police to use those powers to the full. As we made clear with the action plan that we published yesterday, more powers will be available, if needed. They are important, they make a real difference to communities and they are absolutely in line with what local people want.

David Cameron: May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about Rachel Squire? She will be missed on both sides of the House, and she was especially noted for her very good work on defence. I also agree with him about Tony Banks, who had a commitment to sport and a legendary wit, which was often directed at people trying to do my job. Personally, I also have fond memories of Merlyn Rees, the respected former Labour Home Secretary who died recently. Believe it or not, I remember going with him to the Republican party convention in America in 1992. I think he must have been new Labour before the term was properly invented.
	The decision by Iran yesterday to break the seals of its nuclear facility has caused widespread concern. What steps does the Prime Minister propose to take to maximise the international consensus on taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council?

Tony Blair: First, let me say that there will be a meeting of European Ministers tomorrow when we will discuss how we can take this forward now. The decision by Iran is very serious indeedI do not think that there is any point in people or us hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do. When that is taken in conjunction with its other comments about the state of Israel, real and serious alarm is caused right across the world. The meeting will take place tomorrow and we are obviously discussing the matter closely with our American allies as well. A reference to the Security Council is entirely in line with what the International Atomic Energy Agency itself decided some time ago. The only reason why it suspended a reference to the Security Council was because Iran had suspended its enrichment facilities. That is why it is extremely important that we take a fresh look at this now.

David Cameron: Clearly, if the matter does go to the United Nations Security Councilwe hope that it willone of the issues will be sanctions. The Prime Minister well knows that sanctions in the past have not always been effective in getting countries to comply with their international obligations. What steps will he take to ensure that they are effective in this case?

Tony Blair: I think that the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, if that is, indeed, what the allies jointly decide, as I think seems likely. At that point, we have to decide what measures we are going to take. We obviously do not rule out any measures. It is important that Iran recognises how seriously the international community treats it. However, it is better to go through the process of first having the meetings and discussions, and reaching agreement; we can then set out the measures that we want to take.

David Cameron: I am sure that what the Prime Minister says about following the process is right. The aim we all share is non-proliferation. However, is it not the case, as he says, that Iran has not only taken steps repeatedly to acquire nuclear weapons, but has also made the very damaging remarksthreatening remarksto which he referred, about the future of Israel? Given that, does not that underline the case for stepping up our efforts to encourage pluralism, a civic society and a liberal and progressive culture in Iran itself?

Tony Blair: I have no doubt at all that when we consider the issues, there are two things that we need to do. First, we have to take immediate steps to protect the security of the world. That is why a potential reference to the Security Council is important. That is absolutely right. Breaking the seals is a very important act. The statements on Israel are important statements, which, I am afraid, indicate a malign intention on the part of the Iranian regime.
	Secondly, we have to consider the long-term issue of how we best protect the security of the world. I have no doubt that the best long-term security for us is the spread of freedom, democracy and values that all civilised people share. The important thing about the recent elections in Afghanistan and Iraq is that they dispose once and for all of the myth that democracy is something that western people want, but that those in other cultures do not want. In fact, democracy and freedom are values of the human spiritthey are universal valuesand we have learned enough from our international diplomacy over the past few decades to recognise that the only long-term stable partners for countries like Britain, the United States of America and our allies in Europe are those that share our values.

David Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow city council and the Scottish Executive have just launched their bid to attract the 2014 Commonwealth games to Glasgow? Will he replicate the excellent assistance that he gave to the successful campaign to obtain the 2012 Olympics for London and do all he can to ensure that the 2014 Commonwealth games come to Glasgow?

Tony Blair: I am sure Glasgow would make an excellent venue for the Commonwealth games. Scottish people are passionate about sport. As we learned from the Commonwealth games in Manchester, they have a unifying impact on the whole country, too. I wish the Glasgow bid well and we will obviously support it in any way we can.

Menzies Campbell: rose

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Menzies Campbell: And a very happy new year to all hon. Members as well.
	May I associate myself with the observations made by the Prime Minister about Tony Banks and Rachel Squire? Tony Banks was a rare talent who enlivened the lives of us all, particularly his Chief Whip. Rachel Squire, who was my neighbouring MP in Fife, was a woman of immense dedication and, latterly, of extraordinary courage. Her constituents have truly lost a champion.
	The National Audit Office today reports that 1 million pupils are being failed by our schools. The Health Committee has described the latest proposals for health service reform as ill-judged. The police are up in arms about the Prime Minister's costly proposals for centralisation. Why are the Government making such a mess of public service reform?

Tony Blair: Let me point out what in addition the National Audit Office report says so that we have a balanced discussion of the record over the past eight years. It is correct that it talks about 1 million children not getting the education they need. That is out of a total of almost 8 million. But this is also what it finds: over the past eight years, the number of failing schools has been halved by this Government; the number of schools with serious weaknesses has been more than halved. The number of secondary schools getting below 30 per cent. five good GCSEs has fallen from 900 in 1997 to just 340 in 2005. And the number of good leaders and managers within the schools has risen from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 75 per cent. today.
	In addition, all the results at 11, 16 and 18 are better than they were in 1997. In addition, every single health service waiting list indicator, in-patient and out-patient, is better than it was in 1997. In addition, there are record numbers of police, and crime has fallen over the past eight years of this Government. So I think public service reform and investment is doing very well.

Menzies Campbell: While the Prime Minister is anxious to achieve some balance in the argument, perhaps he would like to explain why one in five schools do not have a permanent head teacher[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Menzies Campbell: I just knew that it was going to be one of those days, Mr. Speaker.
	When the Prime Minister entered No. 10 Downing street, he rightly abandoned socialism, but has not Blairism become a byword for centralisation and a failure to deliver?

Tony Blair: On the heads vacancies, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it can be difficult to find the head of an organisation when the post is vacant, particularly if it is a failing organisation. [Laughter.] If he is in favour of greater devolution of power, presumably he supports our choice agenda in the NHS and our schools White Paper, which gives more powers to schools.

Stephen McCabe: Does the Prime Minister agree that while there has been considerable progress in tackling antisocial behaviour, there are still too many decent people in places such as Hall Green who do not receive proper, prompt assistance when they need it? Far from being a media gimmick, does not the respect action plan recognise those weaknesses, offering such people proper redress and, above all, showing them that we at least are on their side?

Tony Blair: I think my hon. Friend is right to point out that local communities need those additional powers. Yesterday, we suggested extending the power that is available to shut down houses used for drug dealing so that we can shut down homes that are used for persistent antisocial behaviour. It is important to do so, but it is also right to deal with the underlying causes, which is why we have doubled the number of people who can enter programmes that treat their drug addiction. It is why we have Sure Start and the new deal for local communities. It is important, however, to make sure that those communities have the powers that they need, and that the police and local authorities use them. I entirely agree with my hon. Friendthese are not gimmicks, as someone said yesterday, but are vital if local communities are to reclaim order on their streets.

David Cameron: May I start by welcoming the new acting leader of the Lib Dems? That is something that the Prime Minister failed to do, and I hope that it is not becoming habit-forming. Whether interim or otherwise, those of us who have recently taken part in such contests look forward to watching this one. This year, more than 2 million people are likely to die from AIDS, most of them in Africa. The international community is now rightly committed to ensuring that all HIV/AIDS sufferers have access to treatment by 2010, but will the Prime Minister consider setting interim goals between now and 2010 to make sure that that vital target is hit?

Tony Blair: I should, of course, have welcomed the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). I shall give him an even bigger welcome if his position becomes permanent, not temporary. [Hon. Members: Ooh!] It would probably be easier if I rejected him entirely. Well, I am happy to do that.
	In respect of the AIDS programme, the reason why we have set the target as close as possiblethere must necessarily be some discretionto full coverage by 2010 is that that is the best we believe we can do, building up the programme over the next few years. We are about to increase it massively. The global health fund has just agreed $4 billion for the killer diseases and we want to build up the programme as quickly as possible. It is difficult for me to set targets year by year[Hon. Members: What?]on behalf of other countries, but in respect of our own programme we are trebling aid to Africa over the next few years. The number of people with HIV/AIDS whom we are helping with antiretroviral drugs and by other means is increasing the entire time, so the UK has an awful lot to be proud of in what it is doing in relation to HIV/AIDS. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is difficult for me to take responsibility for what other countries will contribute, particularly to the global health fund.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the answer, but I think the Prime Minister could play a role. The Department for International Development is co-chairing the UN committee that is reviewing the targets. The Prime Minister will know that the last target to help people with HIV/AIDS was catastrophically missed. The target was for 3 million people to have access to antiretroviral drugs by 2005, yet in the event only a million will have received those drugs. Will he look again at the case for setting interim targets, which would make it more likely that the 2010 target will be hit, as we all want to happen?

Tony Blair: As I say, I am happy to consider that, but for the reasons that I have given, it is difficult for us to start setting precise targets for measures that will include other countries. Let me come back to what the hon. Gentleman saidcan we not do more on HIV/AIDS? This country has led the way on overseas aid and development in the past eight years. I remind him that when we came to office, the development aid budget had been falling. The UK was way behind other countries in our profile on overseas aid and development. Thanks to the work that the Chancellor and successive Secretaries of State for International Development have done, this country now leads the way on debt relief and in relation to aid and the treatment of killer diseases. At the G8 summit at Gleneagles, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we agreed a comprehensive action plan, the first of its kind for Africa. So I can assure him that I need no instruction from him or anyone else. We will carry on doing everything we can in order to promote action on Africa, and I am pleased that at long last the Conservative party is joining us in that.

Mark Hendrick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Cumbria and Lancashire strategic health authority, the number of people waiting between six and nine months has fallen from 7,593 to just 301a fall of 96 per cent.since 1997?

Tony Blair: It is not just for people waiting that length of time that waiting lists have fallen. Waiting lists in the national health service have fallen for every single one of the main indicators. When we came to office, hundreds of thousands of people were waiting on in-patient lists for nine months or for over six months. Those figures have come down dramatically. There is a maximum of six months, and we will go further and get to 18 weeks door to door for both in and out-patient lists by the end of 2008. [Interruption.] I can give the figures for out-patients as well. We have done extremely well in that regard also. When we first came to office, there were 157,000 people waiting for more than half a year on an out-patient list at any one time. Now there is none. There were 97,000 waiting more than 17-plus weeks, and now there are just over 200. There were 338,000 waiting over 13 weeks. Now the figure is 40,000. So there has been dramatic improvement across the range of in-patient and out-patient waiting times. That is the result of the investment and reform programme pursued by the Government and opposed by the Conservative party.

Simon Hughes: If the national health service is doing as well as the Prime Minister is trying to persuade us that it is, why does Oxfordshire NHS patient Mr. Mike Collins have to borrow 10,000 to go private and get the heart treatment that he needs?

Tony Blair: First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to whatever position he holds. I accept that some people are still waiting too long, which is the reason why we set out a programme over a number of years to reduce the number of people on waiting lists. When we entered office, people were waiting for more than 18 months, but the maximum is now six months, and it will be reduced further. We have been able to do that because of the extra investment and the change. On the reform programme in the national health service, waiting lists began to fall dramatically in London and elsewhere when we introduced the choice agenda. The hon. Gentleman's Liberal Democrat partylet us not be presumptuous; it is not his Liberal Democrat partyhas opposed every single change.

Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but that is what happened. [Interruption.] Then this must be a U-turn, which is good. If he is going to back our reforms, I am going to start backing him rather than the other one. [Laughter.] There is no end to the Liberal Democrat careers that I could sacrifice this afternoon. Where is the third one? The Liberal Democrats have got some hard thinking to do over the next few months.

Nick Palmer: Will the Prime Minister congratulate Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council on receiving the award for the best-performing local transport plan in Britain and reward them by making an early decision on the extension to the tram network? We have been waiting for more than a year, and supporters and opponents of the scheme are equally frustrated, so we need a decision.

Tony Blair: I am looking at the Minister responsible, who no doubt has the reward locked away in a vault. I must get back to my hon. Friend, because I do not know the current position on the tram programme. I will get in touch with him swiftly and remedy that ignorance.

Greg Hands: In October 2004, the Prime Minister rightly praised the staff of the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust after his operation there. What is his message to staff and patients today, given that 300 jobs have been lost, that Macmillan cancer nurses are being assigned directly to the wards and that the trust has the second largest deficit in England of a massive 37 million?

Tony Blair: In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman would want to give the other side of the story: there are almost 4,000 more nurses, 500 more consultants and more GPs in his area since 1997, and there has been a 7 per cent. increase in funding in real terms. I agree that that particular trust has a large deficit, but it is worth pointing out that 4 per cent. of NHS organisations are responsible for 50 per cent. of the overall deficit and that the majority of NHS organisations are in surplus or breaking even. It is correct to look at each organisation that is in deficit to see what can be done. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that that obligation applies to not only the Government, but the trusts, which must provide proper financial management.

Jim Sheridan: In my constituency, another company, Inventec, has announced that it will transfer its manufacturing facility to eastern Europe, which will result in the loss of some 370 jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree with many hon. Members on this side of the House that British workers deserve more protection when such decisions are made by faceless people who are driven by corporate greed and the exploitation of cheap labour?

Tony Blair: I very much regret the job losses at Inventec. Inventec has been working closely with Scottish Enterprise, which is ready to step in with support services for those affected by the change, and the authorities are ready to put together a package of support and help for people who face redundancy. However, it is also important to recognise the huge increase in the number of jobs in Scotland over the past few years. I know that that is no consolation to those who have lost their jobs at Inventec, but we will do everything that we can to help people with retraining and finding new work.

Robert Goodwill: The Government seem to be content that an increasing number of convicted criminals are escaping a custodial sentence. As he embarks on what may well be his final full year in office, is the Prime Minister bothered that a pensioner with a minimal amount of unpaid council tax is more likely to go to jail than some muggers?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is actually wrong about that. The prison population has risen considerably over the past few years. That is not a particular boast for any Government. People are being given custodial sentences. Sentences are there for the court to decide, and over the past few years there has been an increase in numbers, running into thousands, of people being given custodial sentences. It is also true that detection rates are rising, which is good news.

Siobhain McDonagh: What advice would my right hon. Friend give to parents in my constituency who recently received a leaflet encouraging them to oppose academy schools, which was delivered by Merton Conservatives?

Tony Blair: In fairness to Merton Conservatives, Conservative policy changes so quickly nowadays that they may have a little difficulty in keeping up with it. As I understood it, it was the policy of the Conservative leader, at least yesterday, to support the academy programme. I hope that he will intervene with Merton Conservatives and tell them how important it is to have academies, which can offer real opportunities to some of the poorest kids in the inner cities.

Iris Robinson: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House at his previous Question Time on 14 December:
	Obviously, we were not consulted about this matter[Official Report, 14 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1296.]
	when referring to charges being dropped against IRA members accused of being involved in the Stormont spy ring? As the Attorney-General wrote to the leader of my party on 22 December saying, I consulted ministerial colleagues, would the Prime Minister now like to come clean about the extent of that consultation?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the particular element that the hon. Lady is referring to. All I can say is that, as far as I am aware, I certainly was not consulted on whether this prosecution should be dropped. [Interruption.] Well, I have not studied the letter myself, but it has been put in the Library. I will do so, and I will write to the hon. Lady.

Andrew Miller: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), is publishing a new Bill today on regulatory reform. Trailing that in this morning's Financial Times, he says that it is part of
	one of the most radical regulatory reform agendas in the world.
	Will my right hon. Friend assure me that all Government Departments will be actively engaged in this process, as a lot of steps can be taken to improve regulation if that occurs?

Tony Blair: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Bill will make it quicker and easier to remove outdated or unnecessary legislation, but it also makes it possible to implement the Law Commission recommendations. Most of all, as the Chancellor indicated before, we want to take a risk-based approach to regulation, and the Bill will allow us to do that. My hon. Friend will recall that we have introduced regulatory reform legislation before. We have managed to withdraw some regulation under that, but frankly we need to do better, and the Regulatory Reform Bill should commend itselfI hope that it doesto both sides of the House.

Richard Benyon: In his last few months in office, will the Prime Minister look at the grotesque unfairness of the Government grant allocation to local authorities, which sees council tax payers in west Berkshire receiving approximately a third of the amount per head of non-schools grant allocation compared with council tax payers in parts of the north-east of England? Will he explain[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is all that is allowed.

Tony Blair: Surely the hon. Gentleman's local authority has received significantly more money in real terms in the past few years. I understand that in, for example, education, there has been an extra 1,320 in funding per pupil in his area in the past few years. [Interruption.] I agree that maybe it should be morewe want to increase the investment in our public servicesbut I remind him that he fought an election promising to reduce the investment that we were making.

Martin Salter: Yesterday, the Prime Minister launched the respect action plan to give communities better opportunities to tackle crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour. Does he recognise that, in Reading, under the dynamic leadership of the local Labour council, supported by Chief Superintendent Dave Murray, excellent progress has been made in cutting crime through the use of antisocial behaviour orders and getting drug-addicted criminals into treatment programmes? How will his respect action plan help us in Reading and throughout the country to do even better?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right that there is a dynamic leadership in Reading that has indeed delivered the action on antisocial behaviour that he describes. The important thing is that the powers that we outlined yesterday build on that. For example, they extend the ability to give fixed penalty notices and there are tougher actions for homes that are used for antisocial behaviour and for antisocial behaviour especially by younger kids. He is right that, in Reading and other areas, which I have seen for myself recently, such as east Manchester, Harlow and Swindon yesterday, where local authorities, local police and local residents use the powers, they make a real difference. Anybody who believes that they are simply a gimmick or knee-jerk populism should go to those areas, hear what local residents say, see the difference that they have made and recognise that they are a major part of an agenda for restoring community life in this country for the time in which we live, and allow local communities to put the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal, at their heart.

Northern Ireland

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Northern Ireland.
	Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally. Since 2002, for reasons that the whole House knows, that has not been possible. However, our commitment remains absolutely clear: the Government believe that 2006 can be the year for restoration of the Assembly and will work to that end as a matter of utmost priority.
	My predecessors have all referred to critical times for Northern Ireland, and there have been many, but this year is indeed critical, especially for the Northern Ireland political parties and specifically for Assembly Members. For them, 2006 is a make-or-break year.
	If no restoration of the Assembly is in prospect, two stark realities have to be faced. First, public resentment in Northern Ireland continues to build at the continued payment to Assembly Members of salaries and allowances that total on average 85,000 per member while Stormont stands idle. Since it was suspended in October 2002, the Assembly has cost 78 million to maintain.
	Countless times, voters in Northern Ireland have asked me, How long can this go on? I want to tell the House today that it will not go on for many months more. Furthermore, no Northern Ireland political leader has disagreed with me that it would be traducing democracy to have elections for the second time to an Assembly that does not exist. Elections are due in May 2007. For them to be meaningful, we must have an Assembly that exercises its full responsibilities. We therefore need to make progress urgently. We cannot let things drift.
	Members of the Legislative Assembly were elected to be active members of a legislative Assembly, working for their constituents in that Assembly. They have a duty to do so. I want to see them discharging their responsibilities to their electors to govern on the shared basis that the voters of Northern Ireland gave them a mandate for in the 1998 referendum. Of course, that means building greater trust to deliver on commitments already made on all sides.
	Unionists and nationalists need to know that republicans are committed to exclusively lawful means. They need to know that all paramilitary activity, including criminality, has ended. The Independent Monitoring Commission is the body that will make that assessment. They also need to know that there is unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and for the rule of law. And republicans and nationalists have to know that unionists are fully committed to fair and equitable power sharing. But if people are serious about seeing a shared future based on fairness and equality, they must persuade each other of that. I am therefore asking each of the political parties to agree on dates in early February for substantial discussions with the British and Irish Governments, to give their views on the way forward to restore the political institutions. The Prime Minister, together withthe Taoiseach, will be closely involved with developments during the year.
	I also wish to inform the House about the Government's intentions as regards the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. When I moved its Second Reading on 23 November, I said that the Bill was necessary to help to bring closure to Northern Ireland's dark past of violence by resolving outstanding issues that had not been dealt with in the Belfast agreement, primarily that of terrorist suspects on the run. Following the agreement, more than 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. Although victims of atrocities were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers and former terrorists walking free, it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement and lock in the peace. However, it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of the early release scheme. It also left unanswered the question of what to do about others who might be prosecuted in future for crimes committed during the troubles before the Good Friday agreement.
	The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is a challenge to everyone to look to the future, and not to be trapped in the past. That challenge remains. But, as I told the House then, I did not bring forward the Bill with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much. I knew that introducing the legislation would be difficult and uncomfortable, and I neither sought nor expected the sympathy of the House for that.
	Members of the House, particularly those from Northern Ireland, expressed their opposition to the Bill with great power and passion. In detailed discussion in Committee over many hoursI think it was 27 hoursthose concerns were amplified with real commitment by Members across the Committee. That passion was expressed no less powerfully outside the House in meetings that I and my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, had with victims' groups. In response to the arguments put to us in Committee, we have been drafting wide-ranging amendments to the Bill, including amendments to ensure that defendants would have to appear before the special tribunal. We were also giving serious consideration to a time limit for the scheme.
	The Government still feel that it was right to introduce this legislation, not least to honour the commitment made publicly by both the British and Irish Governments in 2003, a commitment that was a key building block in the process that saw the IRA end its armed campaign. The Government could have proceeded with the Bill when the issue was first raised seven years ago. We could have done so when the joint declaration was made in 2003. We did not do so, however, because the IRA had not delivered on its promise to end its war. We waited until that happened.
	Every Northern Ireland party vigorously opposed the Bill, bar Sinn Fein. Now Sinn Fein opposes it, because it refuses to accept that the legislation should apply to members of the security forces charged with terrorism-related offences. To exclude from the provisions of the Bill any members of the security forces who might have been involved in such offences would have been not only illogical but indefensible, and we would not do it. Closure on the past cannot be one-sided. That was, and is, non-negotiable.
	The process would have made people accountable for their past actions through the special tribunal before being released on licence. Sinn Fein has now said that any republican potentially covered by the legislation should have nothing to do with it. But if no one went through the process, victims who would have suffered the pain of having to come to terms with the legislation would have done so for nothing. That is unacceptable, and I am therefore withdrawing the Bill.
	When I introduced the Bill, I said that I would not presume to tell any victims that they must draw a line under the past, but the Government still believe that the anomaly will need to be faced at some stage as part of the process of moving forward. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland is not yet ready to do that. We will reflect carefully over the coming months on how to make progress in the context of dealing with the legacy of the past. We will not rush to conclusions and I will take stock in the autumn. In reflecting, we will be mindful of the views of all the political parties, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, victims' groups and others.
	We are approaching the endgame of a long period of transition that began with the ceasefire of the early 1990s. As I have said before, the endgame in conflict transformation is often the hardest part, and so it has proved in this case, but 2006 can and must be a year of historic progress in Northern Ireland. It must be a year in which we see a devolved, power-sharing executive of local politicians making the decisions that affect the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That goal should unite all Members of the House.

David Lidington: In withdrawing the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, the Secretary of State has done the right thing, and I am happy to give his decision an unqualified welcome. It is good for the House that the Government have decided to join the cross-party consensus which, of course, extended to many Labour Members as well as members of all Opposition parties.
	I hope that as the Secretary of State reflects on the way forward, he will take account of the position of those who were exiled from Northern Ireland by the threats of paramilitary organisations. I ask him above all to have at the forefront of his thoughts the interests of victims of the troubles and their families and to agree that, if there is to be a hope of reconciliation, particularly when we are asking so much of those who have lost members of their families to terrorism, there must be telling of the truth, not just a partial account of the truth, and some justice must be applied to those who were responsible for the violence of the past, even if that justice is largely symbolic. There must be both truth and justice if we are to have a chance of reconciliation.
	As for the proposed all-party talksor, rather, talks between the Governments and the various Northern Ireland partieswe have consistently supported efforts to achieve devolution. I want the institutions up and running again. Decisions that directly affect the lives of people in Northern Ireland ought to be made by locally elected representatives who are accountable to the people of the Province, not by the Order-in-Council procedure here, which is profoundly unsatisfactory and, frankly, pretty undemocratic.
	I hope that the Secretary of State's talks succeed, but does he agree that their success will depend crucially on two things? As he suggested, they will depend on the rebuilding of trust between parties and between communitiesa trust that will have been fractured over the past year by incidents such as the robbery of the Northern bank and the murder of Robert McCartney, and the subsequent treatment of members of his family. Does he agree that trust is unlikely to be rebuilt quickly, or on the basis of a single favourable report from the Independent Monitoring Commission?
	I want to make it clear that we Conservatives welcome the changes that the republican movement has made and announced, particularly those announced during the latter part of 2005, but we also want to see clear evidence that that change is both permanent and irreversible. Above all, does the Secretary of State agree that our hopes of success in the talks and the political process depend fundamentally on an end to criminality in all its forms, and on full support being given to the police, the courts and the rule of law by every political party that aspires to serve in government in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments and I am very grateful for them. I agree that the decision that I have takenit was not an easy decisionis good for the House. My hon. Friend the Minister of State listened for 27 hours to the very powerful points made in Committee by those who were seeking amendments, so to that extent, we have listened to the House and reflected its views.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about exiles. We expect from republicans and loyalists an end to the obnoxious activity of exiling, and that their communities start behaving in a different way. One problem is that there is a need for a change of culture, which, as he knows, is not easy to bring about even in years, let alone in the few months in which we need to make progress.
	I always did, as he rightly insisted that we do, listen to victims. Indeed, just before Christmas, the Prime Minister and I met a delegation, including parents, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Widows Association. It was a very moving meeting and they made some very powerful points. I hope that they will feel reassured by the decision that I have taken today.
	The hon. Gentleman put the point wellI shall read his words in Hansard very carefullywhen he said that we have to see some justice done for the past, even if it may have to be symbolic. He is pitching to exactly the right part of the problem that we need to resolve. In effect, he made the point that I made earlier: we have to find closure on the past not by denying it, but by allowing Northern Ireland to move forward in such a way that people feel that justice has been done, but they are not dealing with offences that could involve events that took place 30 or even 40 years ago by the time they come to court and in a sense feel that they can be dealt with in exactly the same way today, when the IRA war, in its own words, is over, compared with what was the case at the time.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the discussions that we are about to undertake. I hope that, in the spirit of consensus that we are seeking to work towardI am grateful for that, toohe will encourage all political parties to behave responsibly and to take part responsibly in those discussions. I agree with him that decisions are best taken in Northern Ireland by elected representatives, which is what we both want to achieve. I also agree that the situation depends on building trust. I should point out to my friends in the Democratic Unionist party in particular that they are entitled to feel suspicious. They got very close to doing something very difficultreaching agreement in the latter part of 2004, only to discover, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Northern bank robbery and the McCartney murder.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, to be absolutely fair, events have changed the situation very significantly since then. The IRA's statement and the decommissioning that followed are of historic significance, as he pointed out. I also accept that we cannot build trust on the basis of a single report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which is due in early February. On the other hand, if that report shows a sea change, we are entitled to expect a responsible response from all the political parties. I further agree that we have to see an end to criminality, and that Sinn Feinalong with all political parties, loyalist groups and othersneeds to sign up to the rule of law and policing. That is absolutely essential.
	In respect of policing, I visited south Armagh over the Christmas recess and discovered that many residents in republican communities such as Crossmaglen now approach the police about burglaries, youth yobbery and other problems with which we are all familiar in our own communities. Such problems are starting to arise in the more normal conditions that now prevail across Northern Ireland. I hope that there will be full co-operation with the police, especially from Sinn Fein councillors and Members of the Legislative Assembly. It is their duty to co-operate, but it beats me how on earth they can expect to take part in an Assemblyand even to hold ministerial officewhen they do not even talk to the police.

Lembit �pik: I add my welcome to the Secretary of State's candid announcement, and the fact that he chose today to share the Government's intentions with us. From the first part of his statement, it is clear that he regards May 2007 as something of a deadline. Does he agree that there have been rumblings of discontent for a long time now about the cost of the Assembly and the salaries that are being paid when there is no visible return in terms of an operational democratic structure? However, does he accept that many Assembly Members have acted in good faith throughout and done their very best to ensure a functioning Assembly?
	What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the good are not punished for their loyalty to the process? Will he make sure that there is a degree of discrimination in the Government's approach and that a distinction is made between those who have acted in good faith, in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and those who have sought to resist the operation of the Assembly? I am sure that he will agree that it is not reasonable to punish those who throughout have done their best, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, to maintain a bipartisan agreement.
	I turn now to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has sensed and heard the resentment and opposition from all sides to that proposal. Is not this only the second time in the past few years that there has been collective opposition to Northern Ireland legislation introduced by the Government? That collective opposition has been so considerable that all the Northern Ireland parties, including Sinn Fein, have opposed the Bill, as have all the Opposition parties on the UK mainland. Does he recall that the other legislation to arouse such opposition was the Bill to introduce student tuition fees? On that occasion, the Government lost a vote on these premises but nevertheless forced the introduction of the proposals. Will he accept my gratitude for the fact that, this time, he and the Government have heeded the many criticisms and amendments put forward in the Standing Committee considering the offences Bill?
	My party concurs with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in that we will not make mileage out of this decision. The Government have done the right thing, and we recognise that there must be some sort of resolution to the problem. On behalf of all Liberal Democrat Members, I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. On this occasion, the Government have listened, and acted maturely.

Peter Hain: After that, what can I do but thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks? I do so in all sincerity: he and I are in the same position on this matter, and always have been. He has played an honourable and responsible role in seeking to make progress in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) is right to say that the Government have listened to the House in respect of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. Equally, the Bill was passed by a comfortable majority on Second Reading. There were 44 Divisions in Committee, and none was lost[Laughter.] I say that because withdrawing the Bill is the right thing to do, as the hon. Gentleman freely said. However, I want to make it clear that I am not withdrawing it because the Government did not command a majority and were unable to get it through the House. I think that we could have got it through, with amendments of the sort that we were planning.

Lembit �pik: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman agrees with that. He spoke about the political process, but May 2007 is not a deadline, as we have to make progress this year. An election in early May 2007 cannot be postponed a matter of weeks beforehand. He is right to say that we cannot elect people to an Assembly that does not exist and that the public in Northern Ireland would not stand for that. Moreover, as I said in my statement, we cannot continue to pay the salaries and allowances of people who are not prepared to take their legislative responsibilities seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman said that many Assembly MembersI assume that he was referring to those in the Alliance partyhave struggled all through the past few years to try and get

Jeffrey M Donaldson: They have struggled all right.

Peter Hain: I say to my friends in the Democratic Unionist party that it is right to recognise that people in certain parties have sought honourably to get the political process up and running. The Alliance is one of those parties.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke about discrimination, but I do not think that that would be possible. I think that all Members of the Legislative Assembly act in good faith, to use his phrase. I would not want to be the arbiter of who does and who does not act in that way, especially when it came to deciding whether salaries and allowances should be withdrawn. If Members of the Legislative Assembly are not willing to do their jobs in the Assembly, there is no point in going on as we are.
	Assembly Members from all parties write to me, so I know that many of them do a job in their constituencies. However, their constituents elected them to take their responsibilities as legislators seriously, and the point is that they are not doing so. I welcome what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said and look forward to working with him over the coming months.

Mark Durkan: The statement by the Secretary of State covers two main areas and my remarks will relate to both. First, he said that he hopes that talks will be held and asked party leaders to agree to dates in early February. I can assure him that my party has no problem about his preferred dates and that we will take part in a sensible and meaningful way, but I hope that he will ensure that we will not have to continue our grand tour of various stately homes in Great Britain.
	Will the Secretary of State also consider setting a date for restoration of the Assembly? Instead of making flaky threats about withdrawing salaries if progress is not made by the summer, he should tell us by what date the Government want the Assembly to be restored. It was the Government, and not the Members of the Legislative Assembly, who suspended the Assembly: they did so because of the IRA's failure to decommission its weapons and its decision to continue its activity. The IRA's refusal to decommission gave other parties an effective veto on Northern Ireland's political institutions. Now that that problem has been dealt with, that veto should be deemed to have expired and the Government should make it clear that we are on a countdown to restoration.
	Secondly, the Secretary of State announced the withdrawal of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. I join other hon. Members in welcoming that, although my welcome is not unqualified, as I am concerned that some of the right hon. Gentleman's other remarks imply that the proposals might be recycled in another form. I hope that he will confirm that the Bill truly has been abandoned, and not merely parked until another time, because it does not deal with the past in the way that he suggested.
	The House will recall that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred to the example of South Africa. However, the key phrase in the foreword to the South African legislation was that the past should be left behind on a moral basis. There was nothing moral about the Bill, nor about the way that it was introduced. It would have built a moral vacuum, a legal quicksand

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway, but the Secretary of State has made a statement. Several supplementary questions have been put to him, so I think that we will leave the hon. Gentleman's contribution at that.

Peter Hain: First, I can respond to the final point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) by saying that I am grateful for his welcome for the withdrawal of the Bill. I assure him that there is no intention to recycle it, but the anomaly associated with the on-the-runs and those who might be prosecuted as a result of historic or current inquiries persists. That is true whether the people involved were in the security forces or belonged to paramilitary groups. That anomaly will continue to throw up many problems and issues over the coming years. We can either accept that, or we can find a legislative vehicle to resolve the matter. I want people to pause for reflection, and there is no question of our just recycling the Bill. It should not be on the agenda for the next months, at any rate.
	I am grateful that the SDLP will be willing, as it has always been, to participate in political negotiations. Indeed, it has been pressing for them. I agree that, in my hon. Friend's inimitable phrase, there should be no grand tour of stately homes. We might come to my own one at Hillsborough once or twice

Patrick Cormack: Hear, hear.

Peter Hain: The Chairman of the Select Committee agrees. I was privileged to have him and his Committee for dinner before Christmas.
	On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about setting a date to restore institutions, I do not think that that can simply be done unilaterally. We have to proceed carefully, but he is right that we are on countdown. May 2007 is a deadline, but it means that we have to proceed this year and to get the Assembly up and running. We are in the countdown period, but I do not want to set an arbitrary date as that could cause the sort of problems from which it is difficult to emerge.

Peter Robinson: It is helpful that the Secretary of State has set out his stall today. I welcome some of his comments, and my colleagues and I particularly agree that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, although we would enter the caveat that it must be governed by those committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
	It is not unreasonable of the Secretary of State to recognise that it would be unconscionable to hold an election to an Assembly that has not met over the past four years. Nor do we have many misgivings about ending the salaries of Assembly Members if progress cannot be made, although, to be consistent, I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to give the House an assurance that if Sinn Fein is not doing its job in this House, he will never consider paying allowances to its Members of this place.
	I very much welcome the withdrawal of the OTR Bill; it was the right step for the Secretary of State to take. It is welcome to all the Opposition parties, who have worked collectively and very well on the issue. I am glad the decision was taken here in the democratic Chamber rather than being forced on the Government in another place.
	Finally, while the DUP wants real progress on devolution in Northern Ireland, there has to be some reality in the Government's thinking. It is not always possible to complete a journey in one step. Would it not be sensible for the Government to recognise the limitations imposed by the fact that trust is the most essential ingredient in forming any Cabinet? That trust, at present, simply does not exist. Trust is not based on a calendar; it must be built up over time. Is it not possible to consider taking a first step on the road to executive devolution by having a non-executive form in which people can start to build trust and in which the credentials of Sinn Fein and the IRA can be tested?

Peter Hain: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, which was in the spirit of the mood of the House. Since he has agreed with the point I made about 2007, I have to agree with him. There is no difference between us in saying it would bealthough I hesitate to use the terma kind of farce for democracy to go through a process of electing people to a body that does not exist.
	I note that the hon. Gentleman has no misgivings about salaries and allowances, which covers Members' advice centres and all the rest. I am not suggesting that because I want to hold a sword of Damocles over MLAs. I am doing it because it is logical and what the public want. The public want MLAs to do their jobs, and the hon. Gentleman is indicating, I think, that he senses that they may be right.
	I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Bill. Implicit in what he said was the fact that many fierce words were expressed in Committee over many days. What struck me, however, and what the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), reported to meI pay tribute to the great sensitivity with which my hon. Friend dealt with matters in Committee, and I sense that the House agrees with me on thatwas the role played by the DUP, the UUP, the SDLP and, indeed, the official Opposition, despite the fact

Lembit �pik: What about us?

Peter Hain: And the Liberal Democrats, of course. Leaderless as they may be, I still have to pay tribute to them.
	The point is that the Committee showed Parliament at its best. People had fierce disagreements but were able to treat each other with respect, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and his colleagues certainly behaved in exactly that way.
	I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about wanting real progress on devolution. That was an important statement from the Deputy Leader of the DUP, and I know that he means it. He is entitled to say that there has to be a reality check, and I understand why he says it. I note carefully what he said about the problems of taking just one step. He asked whether there could be some non-executive precursor to power sharing, to build trust. I await proposals from him and his party and from other parties. I am not keen on the idea of an Assembly prior to a power-sharing Executive. I would like to act in the way provided for by the Good Friday agreement. If, however, there were all-party consent, which it would be the duty of the DUP to seek, along with other parties, and if people came to me with a model that others would support, that would be an interesting proposition, which we could talk about after the IMC report in early February.

Adrian Bailey: I commend the Minister for having the honesty to recognise that the Bill had become unworkable and for being prepared to withdraw it. It is obvious from what he has said that he has spent considerable time talking not just to the politicians of Northern Ireland, but to the people on the streets from all communities. What are his assessments of opinion on the street about restoring the Assembly and of all-community support for policing in Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: There is virtually universal support for all-community policing in Northern Ireland, even in republican communities and even if republican leaders have not yet signed up to it. On restoring a power-sharing Government, feelings are, to be perfectly frank, ambivalent, according to where people stand politically and what experience they have had in the past. That is reflected, for example, in the difference of opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Iain Duncan Smith: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in congratulating the Secretary of State on withdrawing the Bill. I and many others felt very strongly about it. I have served in Northern Ireland, and many have to live in that environment. It was a pernicious measure, and I am glad that he has seen the light.
	I was concerned, however, that it took Sinn Fein to decide the fate of the Bill, not those who have taken their places here and legitimately argued their case. I hope that that will not occur ever again.
	If the Secretary of State ever thinks of bringing back the Bill, or anything like it, he should learn from the South African experience. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that we cannot have peace without justice, and making people confront the victims of their actions is absolutely vital if we are to have any closure. We must not have the process that the Secretary of State proposed, which would have allowed those people to escape and never have to face up to what they did.

Peter Hain: I do not accept that the Bill was pernicious. We were drafting amendments on the subject of people appearing in court, and I listened to what was said in Committee.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned South Africa. Despite the fact thataccording to my calculationsmore than five times as many people were killed during the bitter years of apartheid as were killed during the troubles in Northern Ireland, and despite the fact that Nelson Mandela spent 10,000 days of his life in prison, leaving his family bereft, and experienced the killing of many of his close comrades, he was able to build trust and to forgive, although not forget. That is the point that I ask all politicians, parties and people of Northern Ireland to learn from: it is the only way forward.

Alasdair McDonnell: I congratulate the Secretary of State on withdrawing the Bill, which caused all of us a lot of stress. I am heartened by its withdrawal and grateful that he took that wise step.
	I agree that it is not credible to sustain the payment of Assembly Members indefinitely. We all accept that, but we would like responsibility to be placed where it belongs. I shall not try to defend the indefensible, but responsibility for whether payment was made falls within the remit of the Secretary of State. A previous Secretary of State decided that on suspension 75 per cent. of salaries would be paid.
	The Secretary of State mentioned the figure of 85,000 per Assembly Member, but, if taken out of context, that could be misconstrued and even seen by many as disingenuous. The salary of an Assembly Member is about 30,000 and the rest goes on expenses and maintaining a constituency service. Many Members of the Assembly, from all parties, work very hard as constituency representatives, trying to maintain public involvement in and engagement with the evolving new democratic process. That is important. Many colleagues maintain offices and staff and I know one colleague who tries to run three offices and three members of staff from expenses in a difficult constituency in which he is trying to build hope, trust and confidence in democracy. I urge the Secretary of State

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I know that he is new, and I do not like to interrupt new Members, but during a statement one supplementary only should be asked. I give a little elbow room to the Front Bencher from every party, which I have already done. Perhaps the Secretary of State could now answer the hon. Gentleman's points.

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not credible to continue paying people who will not fulfil their legislative responsibilities. The figure I gave includes a 32,000 salary and 48,000, which is the maximum claimable for office costs, to provide the service to constituents that MLAs almost universally provide with great diligence. The figure of 85,000 is an average figure given to me by the relevant Department that works to me. I accept that many people do work very hard.

Patrick Cormack: In adding my welcome for the statement, especially the withdrawal of the Bill, may I ask the Secretary of State for an assurance that if he is minded to produce newnot recycledlegislation, it will be committed to pre-legislative scrutiny, possibly to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as suggested by the Committee?

Peter Hain: I do not have any plans for recycling the Bill or for early legislation. We need to cool the issue down. As I said in my statement, I hope that next yearor whenever the hon. Gentleman feels it is appropriatethe Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will look into the past in that context. I cannot give a commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny at the moment, because I do not have any plans to bring back a Bill, but I have always been a big fan of it. Such legislation could be a good candidate if some future Secretary of State or even I were to introduce a Bill on the basis of consent.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State be more specific about what date the Assembly might be re-established? The intentions are fine, but we need to be more specific about when it will happen in order to hasten any negotiations that take place. In the light of the Bill's withdrawal, is he satisfied that the Belfast agreement is being adhered to and is still fully supported by the Government? His defence of the original measure was that it was part of the Belfast agreement, so the issue will have to be returned to at some point.

Peter Hain: I made it clear that we will have to return to the issue if we are to resolve the anomaly that I described. To that extent, I am honouring the Good Friday agreement. I introduced the Bill in good faith in response to commitments made by both Governments in 2003. One of the parties to those commitments has now reneged on its support for the Bill and it should ask itself some questions before we start down the road that my hon. Friend suggests.

Lady Hermon: I am delighted and I am unanimouswhich is one of the benefits of being on my ownin my welcome for the Secretary of State's courageous announcement that he will look at the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members. I believe passionately in devolved government in Scotland and Wales, and particularly in Northern Ireland, but it has been very offensive to many constituents, some of whom are waiting for hip and knee replacements, to see salaries and allowances being paid to MLAs. I also welcome the withdrawal of the OTRs Bill.
	One little outstanding matter needs to be clarified. Is it true that the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the Northern Ireland judiciary were opposed to operating the OTRs Bill and that that was one of the prime reasons why the parallel structure had to be put in place?

Peter Hain: I cannot comment on that last point and I do not think that the hon. Lady would think it proper for me to do so. Despite the fact that she speaks for one unanimously, I think that she speaks for many more, as does her party in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for her remarks. I am also grateful for her support on salaries and allowances for MLAs.

Michael Connarty: On the issue of withdrawal of the Bill, my right hon. Friend will know that I supported it in the optimistic hope that it would bring about peace and reconciliation. I spoke to him yesterday about the families bereaved by the McGurk's bar bombingthe victims included my grandmother's youngest brother, whom we fondly called Uncle Phillywho hoped that the Bill might provide some way to bring to some form of justice the people who carried out that bombing. Robert Campbell, a member of a loyalist paramilitary organisation, admitted to driving the car, but the two men who placed the bomb have never been named. We understand from the families' campaign, run by Patricia Irvine and others, that the names of those two men are somewhere in the files of the Northern Ireland Office or the Police Service. Where do the families go now for justice, because without some form of restorative justice the two men will never be named?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has mentioned to me the case involving his relative and it is a very serious one. I think that it might be best if he wrote to the Chief Constable, because the historic inquiries team could look into the case and see how we proceed.

Michael Mates: I share the universal welcome for the withdrawal of the Bill, but is it not a sad state of affairs that it appears that Sinn Fein-IRA are still driving so many decisions behind the scenes, by either withholding or giving support? The Secretary of State may ask why Sinn Fein-IRA still withhold support from the police and will not deal with the exiles matter, but is it not because they are looking for further concessions before they agree? Will he make certain that there are no further concessions?

Peter Hain: There can be no further concessions because there is only one way to resolve the matter, and that is by legislation. To be perfectly frank, when Sinn Fein came to me on 20 December and told me that it no longer supported the Bill, my reaction, and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, was to tell it to get lost: given all that we had done to fulfil the commitment that we had agreedwith all the difficulty in the House and the strength of opinionto be told that it was changing its mind and doing a U-turn, that was my attitude. Nevertheless, I did not think it right to proceed with the Bill. That was not in response to what Sinn Fein may have decided from day to day. We are withdrawing the Bill because without the prospect of any on-the-runs actually using it, it would achieve nothing. Victims would see no prosecutions or convictions resulting from it. We would have gone to a whole lot of trouble and cost setting up something of which people would not avail themselves. That was the point of withdrawing the Bill.

Nigel Dodds: I join my hon. Friends and other colleagues in welcoming the withdrawal of the OTR Bill. It is a victory, albeit belated, for common sense and morality and, not least, for the victims. Let us face it; they have had little enough to cheer throughout the entire sorry process.
	Will the Secretary of State accept that democratic parties in Northern Ireland have been willing to get down to work in the Assembly but that, over years, the Government have prevented the Assembly from meeting and proceeding, because they wanted to ensure that the only way forward was the insertion of Sinn Fein, even with its criminality and paramilitarism, at the heart of government? Will not the real test for the Secretary of State come in April, not the summer? Will he really suggest to the House that Sinn Fein Members should have all their allowances restored in this place, when they do not attend the Chamber and fulfil their duties?

Peter Hain: That is a matter for the House, but in respect of Sinn Fein's allowances in the Assembly, they will be treated like everybody else and every other party. I do not want to withdraw salaries and allowances, but if circumstances force it Sinn Fein will have them withdrawn as well.
	I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the Government prevented the Assembly from sitting. We must have all-party agreement for the Assembly to sit. In response to the interesting and quite significant point made by his colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I said that we await proposals from the DUP and we shall want to see whether they have support from other parties. Then we can make progress.

Ben Wallace: We should not forget that the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was introduced under the auspices of Sinn Fein's demands and we now hear that it was withdrawn after Sinn Fein's demands. After all the warm words we have heard, the Government have yet to admit that they never actually conceded any of the amendments drafted by all parties in the Committee. Will not the Secretary of State recognise that Sinn Fein-IRA have been pulling the strings from the very beginning of the process, and will he confirm that, following the meeting on 20 December, the reason he withdrew the Bill was that Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein alone withdrew its support? What other reasons are there for him to come to the House and withdraw the Bill?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not reflect the spirit of the House this afternoon. As a member of the Committee, he knows that my hon. Friend the Minister indicated that we would accept the proposed amendments, including the one proposing that defendants had to sit in court. As I said, when Sinn Fein first came to me to say that it no longer supported the Bill, my inclination was to tell it to get lost, because we would continue with it anyway in spite of its point of viewas my hon. Friend will confirm, because we both discussed the matter. We were considering other amendments, including the reduction of the qualifying period under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 from two to nought years. We were looking at various things, but having listened to the views expressed in the House there seemed no point in proceeding to set up legislation that would not be used by people to cure the anomaly that it was designed to cure. That was the reason.

Iris Robinson: I welcome the decision taken on the Floor of this elected Chambera decision that the Government had, morally, no choice but to make.
	I remind the Secretary of State and other Members that last May there were elections in Northern Ireland and the overwhelming majority of Unionists rejected the iniquitous Belfast agreement. That is why nine DUP Members and only one Ulster Unionist are sitting on these Benches. The on-the-runs measure was not part of that agreement, but a side deal entered into by the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party and Sinn Fein-IRA, with a little help from the Ulster Unionist party. Will the Secretary of State, as he has indicated, meet the victims of the La Mon House atrocity, for which Gerry Adams was arrested and questioned at the time? The Secretary of State is right: he should be listening to the voices of victims

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Lady has been able to make her point.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Minister and I have received delegations, quite properly, from many victims' groups, from all parties and individual groups. We shall continue to listen to them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) may want to contact our office as one of my ministerial team will indeed be happy to receive such a delegation.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged in the past that without the contribution of members of the security services and the armed forces, any calling-off of the IRA's so-called war might never have happened. Where does the withdrawal of the Bill leave members of the armed forces who carried out their orders, sometimes with explicit ministerial permission, but who might be hauled into court as a result of the so-called historic review process?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, puts a pertinent question. One of the reasons that we felt that the legislation was needed was precisely to address the past. A member of the security forces may have acted in the name of the Crown, unlawfully, as they should not have done, and perhaps committed a murder, as they should not have done. Justice should prevail, but we could see them serving a lengthy prison sentence, while paramilitary prisoners who had not served their full sentence were let out on licence under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies that as one of the anomalies that we sought to address in the Bill.
	As I said in my statement and during Northern Ireland questions, those issues will not go away; they will have to be resolved in some fashion and from what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the Conservative spokesman, has said, I think that he agrees with that in principle. After a period of reflection, we might want to see whether we can find a way forward based on consensus.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Last week, I stood with families of the victims of the Kingsmill massacre in south Armagh as they commemorated the 30th anniversary of that atrocity. They will join many families of victims across Northern Ireland in welcoming the Secretary of State's decision. Is not it time that we put the victims and not the perpetrators at the centre of the process? The Government's agenda should be to accommodate not the perpetrators but the needs of the victims. In that context, will the Secretary of State consider giving a role to the interim victims commissioner in finding the way forward?

Peter Hain: Mrs. Bertha McDougall is a very able woman. She has a big task on her plate and I expect her report at the end of the year. She is welcome to look at the issue, but she has many other things to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that victims should be right at the centre of the process. A delegation from the RUC widows association went with me to see the Prime Minister about their concerns and their deep anger about the Billthere is no point in disguising that. The hon. Gentleman will understand the irony in the fact that just before Christmas I met a delegation from Sinn Fein of victims of the security forcesthey claimedwho felt equally angry that those people were unpunished. There is a unity of anger on behalf of victims, quite understandably. If I were in that predicament, I might feel exactly the same. There is unity of anger across the community divide. The point is: how do we resolve it? How do we get the anger out and restore normality and consensus? That is the objective that we all share.

Richard Benyon: Obviously, our primary concern has been the needs and worries of victims, but may I give a perspective as an ex-member of the security forces who spent several years in Northern Ireland? What I and other people in my position found so offensive about the Bill is the degree of equivalence that it gave current and former members of security forces and terrorists. If the Secretary of State undertakes this process in future, will he consider the fact that, when we in the House send troops or ask the police to play a role in such a difficult environment, we are sometimes asking a nearly impossible thing? An 18-year-old soldier, Private Ian Thain, in the sister regiment to the one in which I served was convicted of murder in the 1980s, when he had to take an instant decision but took the wrong one. There must be an understanding that what we are asking the security forces to do in those circumstances is incredibly difficult. There must be that caveat if the Secretary of State or the Government wish to take this matter further.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very important part of the Billas I said in response to the hon. Member for Aylesburybut we cannot have one-sided justice. Those in Sinn Fein wanted one-sided justice. They did not want the security forces to be covered by the Bill, but I insisted that they should be, and then what transpired, transpired. Equally, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about a degree of equivalence. What we are trying to do is to draw a line under the past. If people committed criminal offences, even as members of the security forcesthe hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficult circumstances, the instant decisions and all the rest of itand although they might have acted in good faith, some would say that they must account for that. Under the Bill, that would have applied to former terrorists as well. As part of the process of bringing Northern Ireland together to face the future together, we must have some give and take; otherwise, we will find that one set of victims are passionately angry and that the others are reconciled. That cannot be the basis on which to proceed.

Mark Francois: As one of many Opposition Members who was genuinely angered by the introduction of the Bill, may I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State's decision to withdraw it, which will be as popular with victims' families and the military as it has been throughout the House this afternoon? He has eventually done the right thing. May I press him on the talks? Does he accept that the history of our nation, not least of the House itself, demonstrates time and again that appeasement does not work? Will he bear that in mind in the inevitable brokering role that he will undertake on behalf of the British Government when all parties are brought around the table to try to find a way forward?

Peter Hain: May I, first, thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the withdrawal of the Bill? I am not so sure that all members of the military will be cheering in the streets, because the very few of them who may be convicted of offences in the future will have no protection as a result of the withdrawal of the Bill. However, I caution him about using terms such as appeasement. That is the language of the past. The Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher and certainly under John Major, to give them their due, started the process of talking to republicans and negotiating with the IRA. He may call that appeasement, but it has produced the circumstances in which the IRA has now given up its war and the negotiations that followed. Northern Ireland is now more stable, more peaceful and has more prosperity and more jobs than ever before in its history, and the hon. Gentleman ought to give some credit to the Governments and politicians who have shown courage in bringing that about.

Tobias Ellwood: May I pay tribute to the Minister of State, who conducted himself with dignity and honour in Committee? I did not realise that 27 hours were spent in CommitteeI thought that it was perhaps a bit longer than thatbut I am pleased that the Government have finally adhered to all the arguments advanced in Committee.
	The Secretary of State referred to South Africa. I bow to his senior knowledge on the subject. I visited the place very recently and learned about the truth and reconciliation process, and it is clear that there was some form of closure for the victims. I am afraid that the Bill did not go anywhere near that for the victims in Northern Ireland: all it provided was simply a get-out-of-jail-free card for the terrorists themselves.How does all this leave the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which I understand has cost the taxpayer about 300 million?

Peter Hain: I do not think that that is the cost, but the Bloody Sunday inquiry must proceedof course, it mustas must other inquiries. I agree that my hon. Friend the Minister of State behaved with dignity and honour. Many of those who passionately opposed the Bill have echoed that. The hon. Gentleman must take account of the South African situation, where people suffered many times more than even during the darkest times in Northern Ireland and in greater numbers. They have found a way to reconcile their past together, and it has involved forgiveness and coming together, which must occur in Northern Ireland, too.

Sammy Wilson: May I also welcome the Secretary of State's change of heart? Regardless of the route to his conversion, we all welcome the fact that he is now doing the right thing, as he describes it. Of course, for people in Northern Ireland, the right thing would have been never to introduce the Bill in the first place. Does he know whether the Irish Government intend to withdraw their proposals for on-the-runs in their jurisdiction? Will he indicate whether or not it will be a requirement for participation in the Government of Northern Ireland that, to use his own words, there is unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the rule of law?

Peter Hain: I was not trying to set a new precondition for anything; I was just saying that, to govern effectively and for self-government to operate effectively, elected representatives and, indeed, Ministers must respect the rule of law. We must have that and, indeed, great progress has been made in that direction.
	As for the Irish Government, I was talking to the Irish Foreign Minister yesterday and discussing these matters. I speak for a number of different responsibilities in the House, but one of them is not the Irish Government.

Point of Order

Nadine Dorries: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made a written statement to the House about children and vulnerable adults. Would it not have been more appropriate for the Secretary of State to come to the House to give an oral statement about how and why a sex offender was allowed to work with vulnerable children?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, whether the Secretary of State chooses to make a written or an oral statement is up to her. I understand that there are Education questions tomorrow and perhaps the hon. Lady may wish to raise the matter then.

BILL PRESENTED

Legislative and Regulatory Reform

Mr. Jim Murphy, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Hutton, Bill Rammell and Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to enable provision to be made for the purpose of reforming legislation and implementing recommendations of the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Commission; to make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions; to make provision about the interpretation of legislation relating to the European Communities and the European Economic Area; to make provision relating to section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 111].

Care of Older and Incapacitated People (Human Rights)

Paul Burstow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 to extend the definition of public authority to include any body that is regulated under the Care Standards Act; to provide for clear nutritional standards to apply in all establishments providing care for older people; to place certain duties on the Food Standards Agency; to make provision in relation to mentally incapacitated persons; to confer new functions on local authorities in relation to persons in need of care or protection; and for connected purposes.
	I suspect that the name Victoria Climbi will be well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the name Margaret Panting may not be so well known. What is the difference between them? Victoria's tragic death convulsed the child protection system, resulted in two criminal prosecutions, led to the Laming inquiry and the Children Act 2004. Margaret's death did not even result in anyone being charged for the 49 injuries on her body, including razor blade cuts and cigarette burns. The difference between Victoria and Margaret was 70 years.
	The purpose of my Bill, first and foremost, is to safeguard vulnerable older people from abuse and neglect. My Bill comes in three parts. Part 1 seeks to close a loophole in the Human Rights Act 1998. Thanks to the way in which the courts have interpreted the meaning of public authorities under section 6 of the Act, when someone crosses the threshold of a privately run care home the writ of the Human Rights Act does not run. Quite simply there is a protection gap, and it is the old and the vulnerable who are falling through the gap.
	When older people are neglected or mistreated in a care home, when relatives are told they cannot visit because they ask awkward questions, when a married couple are told that, against their wishes, they cannot stay in the same care home and when an older person is evicted from a care home, it is rarely seen as a human rights issue, but often a case of poor practice or standards. Yes, of course standards matter, but first and foremost those are violations of a person's human rights. Such a restrictive interpretation of the Act is not what Parliament or the Government wanted, yet that is what has happened.
	As many as nine out of 10 care homes are operated by private organisations. Two thirds of people living in those homes are paid for by local councils. Despite the legal duty on public authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948, the Human Rights Act does not apply. Privately run care homes are not public authorities. The rights of people who pay for themselves are even more at risk. They do not even have the possibility of a vigilant local authority using its contracting muscle to safeguard their dignity and welfare. The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded more than two years ago that the courts should be interpreting the Human Rights Act more widely. It said:
	We urge the Government to intervene in the public interest as a third party in cases where it can press the case for a broad, functional interpretation of the meaning of public authority under the Human Rights Act.
	The report was good, but it left the matter to the courts to resolve in time, and time is something that the frail elderly in care homes do not have.
	Two years on, little has changed. The Government have not stepped in to put matters straight. They have not tried to amend the Act. As the law stands, two people can receive broadly the same serviceone in a council home and the other in a private homeyet not enjoy equal protection under the law. My Bill would ensure that there would be such equal protection.
	Part 2 of my Bill deals with nutrition in care homes. It is a scandal that in the 21st century, elderly people in care are starving to death. The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 care home residents lose up to 5 per cent. of their body weight within a month of being admitted to a home and 10 per cent. of their body weight within six months of admission. Much malnutrition goes undetected, but it is clear from even the available research that malnutrition in care homes is at epidemic levels. According to research by The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, more than one in five residents in care homes are malnourished, which means that there are 44,000 older people who are the victims of malnutrition today in England alone.
	The personal cost of such poor treatment is incalculable and unacceptable. The cost to the taxpayer of treating malnutrition in long-term care has been estimated at 2.6 billion a year, which is a shocking waste. According to figures from the Commission for Social Care Inspection, almost one in five care homes in England fail to meet the most minimal of national standards for meals and mealtimes.
	Since publicising my intention to bring in the Bill, I have received many messages of support from residents and the relatives of residents who have been neglected in care homes, care home cooks who have experienced bad and good care homes and have offered help with menu ideas, and health professionals who have shared their concerns about patients who have been starved in care homes. One lady reported that her mother was nearly starved to death while she was a resident in a care home. Like many of the other residents at the care home, the elderly lady suffered from dementia and needed help with feeding, but none was provided. Residents were left to fend for themselves and relatives were banned from the dining area. When news came that the care home was to be closed, conditions deteriorated further. Residents were forced to live on a diet of Angel Delight and beans on toastsometimes pilchards on toast. Residents were left for up to 16 hours between meals because the cooks went home at 4 pm. When the manager was asked what the residents could eat at night, he told relatives that there was a pot of fish paste in the fridge. Fortunately, when the lady moved to a new home, the care that she received was so much better that she put on a stone in a month.
	Unlike the standards that are to be introduced in schools, the standards for care homes say next to nothing about nutrition. The Government have rightly decided to implement nutrient-based standards for school meals and it is time that they did the same for care homes. My Bill would put in place such nutrient standards.
	The third and final part of my Bill would give local authorities the task of investigating alleged abuse and the teeth to protect vulnerable adults. The Health Committee reported on elder abuse in 2004. It struggled at that time to get an accurate fix on the scale of the problem because official figures simply do not exist. However, the Committee heard evidence that there could be as many as 500,000 elderly people being abused in the UK at any one time. What do I mean by abuse? I am talking about theft, imprisonment, mental and physical torture and even rape. I am talking about care homes misusing drugs to make managing older people easier due to a culture in which the convenience of staff comes ahead of the needs of residents. I am talking about maltreatment and neglect that denies vulnerable older people their dignity and sometimes even their lives.
	More than a decade ago, the Law Commission said that the law to protect vulnerable people who were at risk of harm was outdated and ineffectiveit still is. My Bill would place a duty on local authorities to investigate when they have reason to believe that a vulnerable person is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm or serious exploitation.
	The House must not wait for an elder abuse scandal to hit our national headlines. It is essential that we have action now on basic rights, proper nutrition and protection from harm. They are essentials, not luxuries, so I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Burstow, Annette Brooke, Bob Russell, Stephen Williams, Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Joan Humble and Mr. John Leech.

Care of Older and Incapacitated People (Human Rights)

Mr. Paul Burstow accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 to extend the definition of public authority to include any body that is regulated under the Care Standards Act; to provide for clear nutritional standards to apply in all establishments providing care for older people; to place certain duties on the Food Standards Agency; to make provision in relation to mentally incapacitated persons; to confer new functions on local authorities in relation to persons in need of care or protection; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March, and to be printed [Bill 112].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Electoral Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: First Joint Report from the Constitutional Affairs and ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committees, Session 200405, HC 243-I and -II, on Electoral Registration; and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6647; Oral and written evidence taken by the Constitutional Affairs Committee on Electoral Administration, Session 200506, HC 640-i and -ii; and the Fifth Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 200506, Session Electoral Administration Bill: Simplification of Donation Reporting Requirements, HC 807. ]
	As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 14
	  
	Repeal of Personal Identifier Provisions

'(1)   This section applies if
	(a)   an order under section 15 has had effect in relation to one or more local authority areas,
	(b)   the Electoral Commission has made a report about the operation of the order, and
	(c)   no order has been made under section 71(2) for the purposes of any of the personal identifier provisions.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may, by order, repeal sections 13 to 17 and this section.
	(3)   The power to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory instrument, but no such order may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(4)   The reference to the personal identifier provisions must be construed in accordance with section 15(13).'. [Ms Harman.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 1Personal identifiers (absent voters)
	'(1)   In schedule 1 of the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) in rule 24, at end insert
	(2)   The prescribed form shall include provision for the form to be signed and, in the case of an elector, for stating his date of birth..
	(2)   In schedule 4 of the 2000 Act (absent voting in Great Britain), paragraph 3 is amended as follows
	(a)   after subparagraph (1)(a) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and;
	(b)   after subparagraph (2)(b) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and.
	(3)   In schedule 4 of that Act (absent voting in Great Britain), paragraph 4 is amended as follows
	(a)   after subparagraph (1)(a) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and;
	(b)   after subparagraph (2)(b) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 15 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'and to whom section 13E (2A)(a) applies.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 11, line 25 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'and to whom section 13E (2A)(a) applies.'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 11, line 32 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'and to whom section 13E (2A)(a) applies.'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 32 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'(2AA)   An application for alteration of registers may be made by any person already included in a register at an address who wishes to provide personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E.'.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 34 [Clause 13], at end insert 'and (2AA).'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 12, line 35 [Clause 14], at end insert
	'(ba)   his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one;'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 12, line 36 [Clause 14], at end insert
	'(2A)   In relation to England and Wales and Scotland
	(a)   in respect of any person wishing to be included in an absent voters list, personal identifiers in accordance with subsection (2) must be provided to the registration officer.
	(b)   in respect of any person wishing to vote in person, personal identifiers in accordance with subsection (2) may be provided to a registration officer, but will not be required to be provided unless the Secretary of State by order so prescribes.'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 14, line 16, leave out Clause 15.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 15, line 25, leave out Clause 16.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 16, line 10, leave out Clause 17.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 72 [Clause 71], leave out line 37 and insert
	'(   )   section 13;
	(   )   section 14;'.
	Government amendment No. 67
	Amendment No. 17, in page 99, line 28 [Schedule 1], at end insert
	'(3A)   In paragraph 3
	(a)   after sub-paragraph (1)(a) insert
	(aa)   the application includes a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).
	(b)   after sub-paragraph (2)(b) insert
	(ba)   the application includes a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).
	(3B)   In paragraph 4
	(a)   after sub-paragraph (1)(a) insert
	(aa)   the application includes a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).
	(b)   after sub-paragraph (2)(b) insert
	(ba)   the application includes a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).
	(c)   in sub-paragraph (4) before paragraph (a) insert
	(za)   (in the case of any application) it includes a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).'.
	Government amendment No. 76.

Harriet Harman: The new clause and amendments that I have tabled fill a gap in the Bill as originally drafted. As we said, it is our intention to hold pilots of the collection and use of personal identifiers in registration. If the pilots are successful, the Bill includes the power to roll out identifiers on a permanent and nationwide basis by order. As drafted, however, the Bill includes no provision for circumstances in which pilots are not successful. At present, if that were to occur, clauses 13 to 17 would remain in limboapproved by Parliament, but not commenced. We do not believe that that would be desirable.
	The new clause and amendments provide for an order-making power to allow the personal identifier provisions to be repealed if pilots show that they should not be rolled out. The order will be subject to the affirmative procedure and could not be made until the Electoral Commission had reported on a pilot scheme. In that way, the commission will have the opportunity to contribute its views and Parliament will be able to make a decision. It might be useful at this point if I provide some more details about where we are with the planning of personal identifier pilots.

Oliver Heald: Is it right to assume any sort of sense of the Government's attitude to the pilots from new clause 14, or is it just good drafting practice that it is wrong to set up pilots without a provision to deal with a situation in which they do not proceed nationally? Are the Government rather half-hearted about the pilots?

Harriet Harman: It is not a matter of the new clause expressing a change in attitude. It simply tidies up the Bill so that we have what was originally intended, which is that if the pilots are successful, we do not have to return to the House with primary legislation because the arrangements will be implemented by order, and if they are not successful, the power will not be left on the statute book and will be repealed in the same way as we are enabling the pilots to be rolled out. We want to make the Bill right.
	The hon. Gentleman again queries whether we are half-hearted about the pilots. Personal identifiers were not my idea. It came from the Electoral Commission and Opposition Members. We accepted the suggestion that we should pilot them, but we are not doing that as a way of kicking them into the long grass. We accept the argument that they are worth testing. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept my good faith on that. We expect the pilots to be a reality and for them to help us to understand more about the way in which the system will work if it is changed. They are not a ruse, a device or a way of fobbing people off. They ensure that if we are to go ahead with the change, we pilot it and test it first.
	I was reinforced in my view that the evidence-based approach is the right way for the Government and the House to be going about this when we had a round-table discussion this morning, helpfully convened by the Electoral Commission, on service voters, many of whom are not registered and who are disfranchised. The House made a change in 2001 on the basis of all-party agreement, which everyone now accepts had unintended consequences. Before we made the national change, we should have piloted it first. Perhaps then we would have seen the unintended consequences and had a different scheme for servicemen and women. I am trying to have a better approach to another change in registration. This is a process issue.

Eric Forth: Does the Minister agree that her comments are a good illustration of why matters that are subject to all-party agreement are invariably a disastrous flop? Does she also agree that what we need is robust debate and robust opposition to ensure that we do not walk blindfold and hand in hand in agreement into an arrangement that turns out not to work? I am grateful to her because she has reinforced my long-held view that Parliament works best on the basis of robust opposition and robust debate.

Harriet Harman: I do not think that all-party agreement is always a disastrous trap. Although we must have vigorous debate on constitutional affairs that deal with the rules in relation to democracy, it should not be divided between the Government and the Opposition. It is unhealthy if we present to the public a Bill that has been the subject of party political footballing. I agree that we should have robust debate, but I would expect that critique to come as much from the Labour Back Benches as from the Opposition, and that is what happened to the Bill. It is right that it is subjected to rigorous critiques, as it was in Committee. Indeed, we had to chuck out many policies because they did not stand up to scrutiny. We did not do that on the basis of Opposition and Government, but on the basis of good, rigorous debate within the House.

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that with the exception, perhaps, of the issue that we are about to discuss, she has been co-operative, has listened and has been prepared to take on board the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Indeed, she has tabled a series of amendments that we very much welcome.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many ofthe Government amendments and new clauses emanated from the Opposition and Labour Back Benchers. They have the Government tag on them, but they are not our idea. I have taken a sceptical approach. When an hon. Member has said, This won't work, I have immediately presumed that the idea will not work and it has had to be reproved. I have not taken the position that because our Department produced it, it is right. My starting point is that it is right. If anyone has said it is wrong, I have swapped sides and have needed it to be proved. That is why the Bill is a bit lighter than when it started out.

David Heath: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can proceed with the debate on the amendments.

Harriet Harman: Let me explain how the pilots will take place. If the Bill receives Royal Assent within the next few months, we intend to commence piloting at the 2006 canvass. A prospectus seeking applications from local authorities is being drawn up and will be issued within the next few weeks. We intend to select areas with an appropriate variety of socio-demographic profiles.
	We intend that the pilots will last for no more than two years and will be evaluated by the Electoral Commission. We are discussing evaluation criteria and methodology with the commission and will do so with Opposition Front Bench spokesmen as well. However, we expect the two key issues that will need to be assessed during the course of the pilot to be the impact of personal identifiers on the completeness and accuracy of the register and the impact of the pilots on the security of the process.

Philip Hollobone: Do we not already have a pilot in Northern Ireland? Why do we need additional pilots for the purposes of the Bill?

Harriet Harman: I will answer that when I deal with the relevant amendments tabled by the Conservative Front Bench.
	Following the pilots, we hope to be in a position to return to Parliament for a decision on national roll-out in early summer 2008.

Andrew Love: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend in the strongest possible terms to ensure that a broad range of pilots is undertaken and, in particular, that they are undertaken in London areas because of the acute difficulties that exist there.

Harriet Harman: We will have to ensure that we understand the effect of the change in all places, so we will need representative areas. London is a key issue. It is close to my hon. Friend's heart as a London Member, and he has spoken about under-registration in London a great deal, with great force and effect. It is close to my heart. As the Electoral Commission showed, London has the worst register in the country in terms of incompleteness. Something like 550,000 Londoners arenot on the electoral register. Any unintended consequence of exacerbating under-registration will be a particular issue for London.

Philip Davies: The right hon. and learned Lady knows of the problems that we have experienced in Bradford with our electoral arrangements, because I have mentioned them to her on a number of occasions. I therefore urge her to make Bradford a special case. She said that the Electoral Commission will look at the results of the pilots. Will she abide by its recommendations after it has done so, or will she not?

Harriet Harman: The commission's task is to evaluate the pilots and to report to us. It is for the Government to decide what it brings to the House, but it is for the House to decide whether, on the basis of the evidence of the pilots, as evaluated by the commission, it wishes to keep the status quo or whether it wishes to make a change and introduce a national roll-out. It will be for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to make that decision on the advice of the Electoral Commission. However, we will not sub-contract the decision to the commission. The question of the law on the entitlement conditions rests with the House, and we will not sub-contract it to the commission. It plays an invaluable role, and it will be involved in the pilots, but we will make the decision on the law on registration in the House.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the problems experienced in Bradford. I always say that there are three issues in relation to democracy. Everyone has the right to vote, which is why registration is important; the security of vote means that no one should fiddle it; and everyone should turn out to vote. The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern about the security of the vote in Bradford. Certain parts of the country feel vulnerable to fraud. That lack of confidence is an issue for the whole country, but it is of particular concern to people in the affected areas, who are entitled to cast their vote and have it counted with exactly the same level of integrity as anyone in other parts of the country. We will therefore work with areas that think that they are vulnerable to fraud, to make sure that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, electoral registration officers and everyone else have the Government's full support so that they can assure people in the area that there will be clean, honest elections. The next test, of course, will take place in May 2006.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister make sure that some pilots use people's national insurance number as the personal identifier as well as their date of birth and signature, so that we can test the difficulties and the increased effectiveness that that may provide?

Harriet Harman: The Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, allows us to pilot the use of national insurance numbers as a condition for registration. It is not our intention to proceed with such a piloting. We will commence with a pilot making someone's signature and date of birth a condition of registration, but it is possible, under the law in the Bill, to pilot national insurance numbers. As for national insurance numbers and Northern Ireland, may I deal with those matters by responding to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which were tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? They would require all electors to provide their national insurance number when registering to vote. Postal and proxy voters, too, would need to provide their national insurance number when applying for an absent vote. Our position on the amendments has not changed since we discussed the issue in the Committee of the whole House. We understand the arguments about the Northern Ireland precedent on both data sharing and security. However, hon. Members will appreciate that Northern Ireland has only just over a million electors and one electoral register. The rest of the UK has about 43 million electors and over 400 electoral registers.

Eric Forth: So what?

Harriet Harman: The answer to that is that it does not follow that an idea that is practical for one system is necessarily practical for another. Community structure, mobility and many other issues affecting the communities and demography of Northern Ireland are very different from the issues affecting communities in this country. Access to the register and security are important considerations. We have highly mobile populations, including many people who are newly arrived in this country, so we have a different community and demographic structure. As a result, we cannot simply say that because something has worked in Northern Ireland, we will introduce it here.

Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Harriet Harman: I will do so, but I expect the right hon. Gentleman to concede that we cannot simply implant Northern Ireland arrangements in this country without further testing and piloting.

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the Minister not only for giving way but for answering the question that I have not yet asked. She is standing logic on its head. If something can be achieved by one electoral authority with a population of 1 million, how much more easily can it be achieved by much smaller registration authorities among the 400 that she mentioned? I would expect locally based electoral authorities, knowing the circumstances in their area, to have the ability to be more nimble on their feet and to monitor elections as well, if not better than the large authority in Northern Ireland.

Harriet Harman: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard my point that Northern Ireland's society is not necessarily representative of other communities in Great Britain. He will have heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who represents a constituency in London. Should we assume that, because something works in Northern Ireland it will work in London, against a very different background with a very different set of problems? The right hon. Gentleman may think that that is possible and that we should legislate and roll the programme out nationally. However, we want to take a more forensic and evidence-based approach. We have looked closely at what happened in Northern Ireland, but we will undertake evidence-based policy making. We will proceed expeditiously with pilots in different parts of the country so that we have a good evidence base.

Oliver Heald: Is not the Minister's basic point that no one knows their national insurance number? The truth of the matter is that the Government tried such an arrangement in Ulster, where 92 per cent. of people registered to vote. That figure is far higher than registration in all the places about which hon. Members have complained.

Harriet Harman: In future, we can pilot a condition requiring people to give their national insurance number before they are entitled to vote. However, it is not right to say, as the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have done, that because something has worked as a condition of registration in Northern Ireland, it will work in exactly the same way in the rest of the country where there are different communities with different levels of population mobility and different demographies.

Barbara Keeley: We have covered this ground on many occasions, but may I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that when the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs discussed the issue, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, talked about the tension between participation and security? On behalf of the commission, he said that
	we do not feel national insurance numbers are something we should be asking people to provide at registration.
	Surely, hon. Members should accept that advice.

Eric Forth: No.

Barbara Keeley: We have discussed this on a number of occasions, and that is the advice of the Electoral Commission. I agree, however, that it is wise to be cautious.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has made a helpful intervention. However, I repeat that it does not follow that an idea that is practical for Northern Ireland is necessarily practical for England and will not have unintended consequences.

Chris Ruane: May I remind hon. Members that the registration rate for Belfast seats after the changes was 72 per cent.? Would hon. Members like such a registration rate in their own constituencies?

Eric Forth: Yes.

Chris Ruane: Exactly.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friends have revealed a level of doubt about arrangements in Northern Ireland that shows that we are right to proceed expeditiously with pilots before we embark on a national roll-out. I hope that hon. Members agree that what we are discussing is not an issue of principle. We all agree that we should have high levels of security. We all agree that no one should fiddle the vote, and that the system should be proofed against that. We all agree that there should be full entitlement to registration. We are discussing how we go about implementing an improvement to the operation in that respect, and our argument is that we should proceed on the basis of evidence and that we should conduct a pilot. The Opposition's argument is that we should go straight ahead and do it. That should be a narrow gap between us. We will proceed expeditiously with the pilots. [Hon. Members: Pilot the scheme now.] We intend to run the pilots now. The Department has already drawn up the prospectus for the pilots on signatures and dates of birth.

Mark Tami: Is not the truth that the Opposition want to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of people registering?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who leads for the Opposition, said that that is not his position. He agreed, as we all do, that a full register where everybody is entitled to vote is essential for democracy. We must all be concerned when large and growing numbers of people are not on the register. He said that he agrees with us on that, so we are proceeding on that basis.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that requiring the additional information raises awareness among electors and places a responsibility on them to ensure that their names are on the electoral register? Like all colleagues, no doubt, in the run-up to an election, I have been approached by constituents complaining that they have not received their polling cards. They have assumed, quite wrongly, that because they are paying council tax, they are automatically on the electoral register, and they need to understand that they are not.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady makes a good point. All hon. Members share the experience of our constituents assuming that they are on the electoral register and being aggrieved when they find that they are not and cannot exercise their democratic right. The data-sharing provisions that we have included in the Bill will require electoral registration officers for the first time to review the data that they hold. If there is someone paying council tax who is not on the register, the electoral registration officer is required to go out, find that person, draw the matter to their attention and put them on the register. A number of provisions in the Bill will, we hope, ensure that the register is more complete.
	As we set out in Committee, when the co-ordinated online register of electorsCOREcreates national access to local registers, data sharing systems such as that in Northern Ireland might be practical for the rest of the UK. The national insurance computer can relate straight to the single body of information of the single register of electors in Northern Ireland. Under theOpposition's proposal, the national insurance contributions system would relate to 400 different electoral registration officers, some of whom have their registers online and some who do not, some who compile their register by address and some who do so by alphabet. We will be in a better position to consider whether the Northern Ireland system can be implemented more widely when we have put in place the co-ordinated online register of electors, whereby all electoral registration officers have to put the information online and feed it into a central register.

Chris Ruane: What is the time scale for the introduction of a central Government database able to communicate with local government electoral registration officers, and what sanctions would be applied to electoral registration officers or chief executives of recalcitrant county councils who refuse to comply with the guidelines and cannot be bothered to ensure a complete register?

Harriet Harman: Under the provisions of the Bill, strengthened by an Opposition amendment, the Electoral Commission must issue guidance which must be accepted by electoral registration officers, who must put their electoral register online and feed through the data in a certain way to go on to the co-ordinated online register of electors. The system is not voluntary. We expect it to proceed as laid down in the Bill. We regard it as not just desirable, but necessary.
	We recently published a consultation paper on CORE which provides more information on this, for Members who are interested. If the proposal goes forward, a national insurance number or other personal identifier may be of use. That is why we have included order-making powers in clauses 14 and 15 to allow for the possibility of other identifiers being piloted and rolled out in the future. However, at present we do not see a use for national insurance numbers in electoral registration outside Northern Ireland, and believe that collecting them would discourage people from registering to vote. The personal identifiers that we propose collecting in the pilotssignatures and dates of birthare simple and easily memorable. A national insurance number is more complicated and we believe that at this stage its use would be disproportionate.
	New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 and 6 to 14 tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seek to give effect to a system of voluntary personal identifiers, as mooted by the Electoral Commission. I am afraid colleagues will have to concentrate extremely hard. Once they have worked out the differences between the Opposition and the Government on personal identifiers, they will have to deal with a third issue: what is the difference between us, the Opposition and the Electoral Commission proposal, which is put forward in his amendment by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome? Under the system that he proposes, all electors would be able to supply their signature and date of birth on the annual canvass formthere would be a space for thatbut they would not be compelled to do so.
	In my view, this lack of compulsion, instead of the pilots for compulsion, is a real weakness. It means that security will be enhanced only if people voluntarily choose to collect signatures for everybody in their household on the canvass form and list everybody's date of birth. There appears to be no benefit from that. It is supposedly helping security, but it is voluntary. Even people who do not do it can go on the register. What benefit is there for security if the system is only voluntary?

David Heath: rose

Harriet Harman: There is a further problem, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before I come to that.

David Heath: The right hon. and learned Lady is being uncharacteristically unhelpful to the House in her description of the Electoral Commission proposal. It is clear that although the scheme is voluntary in respect of people who vote in person, it would not be voluntary for those who wish to vote as absent votersthose who wish to exercise a postal vote. It thereby at a stroke reduces the perceived lack of integrity in the postal voting system, while hopefully not engendering the disadvantages that she identifies but which I do not necessarily share in terms of compulsory personal identifiers for all voters. By suggesting that there would be no improvement in the integrity of the system, she is being a little unfair to the Electoral Commission and therefore to me as I advance its proposal.

Harriet Harman: I do not seek to be unfair to the Electoral Commission or to the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to explain the facts to the House. Although the signature would be voluntary, the hon. Gentleman is right. The question that arises under the Electoral Commission scheme is what if somebody wanted to exercise a postal vote. They would not be debarred from exercising a postal vote if they had not signed the canvass form. They would have a fresh opportunity to sign. But that is a requirement anyway, if people want a postal vote under the present system. There is no difference under the Electoral Commission's proposal as regards eligibility for postal voting. Electors would be on the register without having signed, because signing is voluntary, but when it came to postal voting, they would not be debarred. They would have to provide a signature.

David Heath: I am seriously concerned that the Minister does not understand the point of the Electoral Commission's proposals. Such a person would be debarred from exercising a postal vote if they had not previously provided personal identifiers in the form of a signature and date of birth to the registration officer, in which case the check would be automatic. The check would be more than a signature on an application for a postal vote, because there would be a way of checking identity against pre-existing information on the register in order to maintain the integrity of the postal voting system. The position is odd, because I have not had the opportunity to move my new clause, but the Minister is already providing a commentary, which is based on wrong information.

Harriet Harman: My commentary is not based on wrong information. The Electoral Commission's proposal, which I shall attempt to explain once again, would not change the conditionone householder provides a signature on the canvass formfor getting on the register. Every other individual in that household would not have to sign or give their date of birth as a condition of getting on the register. The householder could fill in those details, which would place other householders on the register and entitle them to vote, and the addition of a signature or date of birth would be optional.
	If somebody were on a household canvass form and on the register without including their signature on the canvass form, would they be debarred from postal voting? The answer is that they would be debarred from postal voting unless they gave another signature. Currently, one must provide a signature to obtain apostal vote application, which is not provided automatically. In practice, the Electoral Commission proposal would not make any difference, which is why it would be the worst of all worlds. It would not improve security, because people would still be able to get on the register without a signature.
	The Electoral Commission's proposal might deter some people from getting on the register. Security would be enhanced only if people were voluntarily to sign their canvass forms and give their dates of birth. It is true that absent voters would have to provide identifiers, but if they did not provide a signature at the canvass stage, they could subsequently provide it when applying for their absent vote. If the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome checks, he will find that that is the proposal, and since absent voters must already provide a signature, it would not change the situation.
	Our pilot schemes will involve compulsory personal identifiers. Whether they take place in Bradford or London, if people do not include the signature of each individual and their date of birth on the form, then those individuals will not get on the register. Let us not shilly-shally around with a halfway house by which a system of voluntary signatures is rolled out nationally. Let us pilot compulsory signatures, which will allow us to assess security and understand the effect on registration. A national roll-out of compulsory identifiers would be wrong, because we would not understand its consequences. The halfway house of voluntary personal identifiers will not help us, because it would not give us security, which will form part of the pilot of compulsory identifiers. Compulsory personal identifiers as a condition of registration are the way forward.
	I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for introducing the proposal. It was trying to find a solution to the problem that we could not obtain all-party agreement on pilots versus national roll-out. Its intention was helpful, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome backs its proposal. In my view, the Electoral Commission's proposal would not provide us with anything better than the current system, but it would provide us with some things that would be much worse than the effect of pilots. Bearing in mind that I have adopted individual personal identifiers, which was not my proposal, and said that we will pilot them, I urge hon. Members to accept the pilot, which will allow us to try out the proposal that I have adopted in practice. The third way, which falls through all the gaps, does not provide any advantages. I am happy to debate it until the cows come home, but I will not recommend it to the House.
	The final problem with the Electoral Commission's proposal concerns advertising the voluntary signature scheme. When the advertising states, Please include a signature, will it include the line, but you do not have to? If the advertising states that the inclusion of signatures is voluntary, the proposal will make no difference. If the advertising uses mood music to encourage people to include signatures, it might have a deterrent effect on people who put the document on the mantelpiece until their child returns from holiday, college or university and signs it, by which time it might have been lost or thrown away. The proposal could depress the register without increasing security, which would be the worst of all worlds. We want higher security and improved access to the register.

Angela Watkinson: What is the value of a signature? How can one verify that it is the signature of the person whose name is written on the piece of paper? It would be simple for one person in a household to write the names of everyone else who lives there. In houses in multiple occupation, the scope for writing other people's names is obvious, whereas a national insurance number is accurate and cannot be forged in that way.

Harriet Harman: If someone knew somebody else's national insurance number or date of birth, they would be able fraudulently to add the signature. The point concerns what the rules should be, and how they should be enforced. We want not only the right rules, but effective operational enforcement. Whether we stick with the current system whereby one person signs on behalf of a whole household, whether we move to one person signing for themselves and adding their date of birth as a result of successful pilots or whether we include national insurance numbers in addition to individual signatures and dates of birth, we must be sure that fraud does not occur.
	I have started to meet the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives on a monthly basis. We are discussing how to provide effective fraud enforcement for whatever system the House chooses in its wisdom and after lengthy debate.

James Duddridge: What advice has the Minister taken from perhaps the most expert body of people on fraud prevention and personal identifiers, the banking sector, which has moved away from signatures altogether?

Harriet Harman: rose

Eric Forth: Just say, None.

Harriet Harman: None, but I shall consider whether I should do so.
	In conclusion, pilots are a sensible and practical mechanism for testing the collection and use of personal identifiers. The evidence provided by pilots will inform the decision, which will ultimately be taken by Parliament, whether personal identifiers should be rolled out nationally, so our approach is evidence based. Security and complete and accurate registers are essential, and the pilots will show us whether personal identifierssignatures and dates of birthincrease security without undermining completeness. If that is the case, the Bill will allow us to roll out such a scheme nationally.

Oliver Heald: Let me preface my remarks by thanking the Minister and her colleagues for the courteous and constructive way in which they have looked at the proposals that we have made in other areas. It has been a good process. It is also right to thank the Electoral Commission for all its hard work. In later groups of amendments, we will find proposals dealing with the assurances that we requested about information being available through the co-ordinated online register of electors, fairness as between parties and independents over descriptions of candidates, clarity about election expenses, issues to do with reducing the threshold for loss of deposits, and having a better test for safety for those wishing to register anonymously and extending that to carers of children at risk. All those are very welcome and I would not want the grudging spirit in which I am going to continue to lead the Minister to think that I am not grateful.
	I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that new clause 14 concerns good drafting. If the Government are setting up a pilot scheme with a provision that they can make it national, it is right that the Bill should contain a provision to enable them to deal with circumstances where they choose not to do that.
	The nub of this group of amendments is the important issue of how we protect the electoral system from fraud. New clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and which we support, is the minimalist position proposed as a compromise by the Electoral Commission. The commission is saying that tackling fraud is an urgent problem that needs an immediate national response. If the Government will not introduce immediately what the commission really wants, which I and other Opposition Members support, then for goodness' sake let us support new clause 1. I would go further than that. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, maintain our stated position in favour of personal identifiers, individual voter registration and the inclusion of national insurance numbers.
	It is worth reflecting on why this is such an important problem. We were all prepared to agree with the introduction of postal voting on demand, but from a very early stage Opposition Members called for proper safeguards to prevent fraud. The Electoral Commission and electoral observerseven some from Ukraine and Serbia, who came to this country to observe our general election last yearpointed out the risk of fraud and said that we should move to independent, individual voter registration. The Government's proposals for a few local government pilots are not an adequate response. This is a proven, successful system that has been trialled in Northern Ireland, which, with 1 million people, is a pretty large pilot by anybody's standards. Already, 92 per cent. of people have provided their national insurance numbers, signatures and dates of birthand that in a country that has areas with substantial deprivation and communities that have emigrated there. It is not a place of leafy suburbsthe sort of area that is likely to volunteer for the pilots. One of the criticisms made by the Electoral Commission is that, with a bottom-up system of pilots, the electoral registration officers who volunteer will be those in the easier areas. We need the Government to grasp the nettle and tackle the problem.
	The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has been something of a problem in this regard. [Hon. Members: And in others.] I am sure. He is in a constituency where the electoral register has collapsed over recent years, where people are not registering and where he admits that large numbers who should register have not done so. What is his solution? He wants to continue with the failed system that we have now. To be honest, that is unacceptable. I understand from his previous speech on the subject that he has been saying to his colleagues, It'll be bad for us come the boundary commission. That is not the answer. We need a system whereby the people who are entitled to vote are on the register, and the people who are not entitled to vote are not on it. He and I should be able to make common cause on that, because that is what anybody who cares about our democracy would want.

Chris Ruane: I have made constructive proposals. In Committee, I gave specific examples of funding by the 22 local authorities in Wales and produced a league table of those that funded well and those that did not. Of the 11 in the lower half of the table, seven had poor registration rates. Funding is a key point. It needs to be increased and monitored carefully. If a county council does not put proper funding in place, its registration should be hived off to a neighbouring county council with a better success rate.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has not been active canvassing and data matching and other methods that are needed if we want to capture the true electorate on the register? We should be able to make common cause about that. He will remember that, last time we discussed this, I gave the House all sorts of examples of people with the most unlikely names on the electoral register, including anagrams of a bogus voter. Surely he cannot want that to continue. Does he recognise that the only way to tackle this properly is to have an objective register against which one tests the names as they come in, and that the national insurance numbers register is the best thing that we have for that purpose? People know their national insurance numbers. In Northern Ireland, 92 per cent. of people know them. The people who know their national insurance numbers best are often those who are the most vulnerable, because they are in need of the state's help to access health care and claim benefits. Their national insurance numbers are a passport to those benefits.

Chris Ruane: There are examples of consensus between the hon. Gentleman and me. He mentioned the importance of data sharing in local authorities. I entirely concur. I have written to 360 Labour Members with a letter from the Lord Chancellor saying that local authorities now have the right to consult databases. I have received replies from about 150. Many electoral registration officers are not implementing the new rules whereby they can cross-reference data. This is a key area on which we can agree and make progress. EROs must consult all the databases that they are responsible for to ensure that we have a full register.
	Is putting further blocks on registration a politically inspired position? How many Conservative MPs would like people in council houses, black and ethnic minorities, or low-paid and minimum wage people to be on the register

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very lengthy for an intervention.

Oliver Heald: If the hon. Gentleman did me credit, he would accept that, throughout these proceedings, I have made it clear that all that we are interested in is ensuring that the people who are entitled to be on the register are on it. As a party, we have campaigned for that for some years now. Our former hon. Friend, Marion Roe, had a well-informed debate about it in Westminster Hall in May 2004, in which she set out the information that she had gained about just how inaccurate registers were. She gave examples of cases where literally thousands of people who should not have been on the register were on it and of EROs who had undertaken clean-up exercises and had to remove 6,000 people from the register who were not entitled to be on it. Judges have said that our system is wide open to fraud like that of a banana republic and that the Government have their head in the sand. In those circumstances, Parliament cannot ignore the problem, especially as we have always taken great pride in our democracy.

Eric Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain the matter later in his remarks, but I am puzzled by amendment No. 17, which he tabled. It would provide for the application to include
	a copy of the applicant's signature, date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he does not have one).
	What assurance can we have of the system's safety if someone could provide a signature, presumably without much verification, a date of birthI do not know how we verify thatand then had the gall to say, I don't have a national insurance number? What kind of assurance does that give me as a citizen that that person is entitled to vote?

David Cairns: Holed below the water line.

Oliver Heald: No. My right hon. Friend makes the fair point that we must have arrangements to deal with individuals without national insurance numbers, because there are some in our society. We propose that, in those circumstances, a statement should be made that the person does not have a national insurance numberthat is what happens in Northern Irelandbut we also support clauses and amendments that give the electoral registration officer an active duty to ensure that the people on the register are those who are entitled to vote. I would therefore expect further checks to be made. To be fair to the Minister, some of the provisions that are already in the Bill strengthen the electoral registration officer's powers to make such inquiries. My right hon. Friend, as usual, makes a fair point, but I believe that it is addressed by a combination of the Bill, our amendments and the new clauses, which we shall consider later.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the arguments that Labour Members have presented against using a national insurance number are largely unfounded? There is no stigma when one gives one's national insurance number. It is not like, for example, being asked to give fingerprints, which is normally associated with criminal activity.
	Will my hon. Friend address my anxiety about a point that a Labour Member raised earlier? Some electoral registration officers behave in an autocratic and high-handed manner. If an officer decides that it has always been done his way in the past and will always be done his way in the future, what sanctions will apply if he does not follow the guidance in the Bill?

Oliver Heald: On the second issue, the Government have tabled amendments to require EROs to provide the necessary information to the proposed central online register of electors. That was previously only a discretionary power in the Bill, so the measure has been strengthened. My right hon. Friend is right that EROs need proper performance standards and to behave according to the highest standards that can be achieved. Again, the Bill overall will improve the position, but we should not be complacent.
	Government is supposed to be joined up and seamless and we hear endless remarks to that effect. Yet the Northern Ireland Office has said that the use of national insurance numbers is essential to enhancing the accuracy of and confidence in the electoral register. Would a Minister care to reflect on that? Is it successful government for one Department to say, Oh no. National insurance numberssurely not, when another Department claims that they are central to enhancing the accuracy of and confidence in the electoral register? The two viewpoints are opposed.
	The Government should join themselves up and the Department should reach the same conclusion as the Northern Ireland Office because it began with the same ill-conceived argument as the Minister. It claimed that national insurance numbers would be a barrier to registration and that such a system would not work. Only constant pressing and probing and the persuasive powers of my noble Friend Lord Glentoran meant that the proposals were accepted. Lord Glentoran persuaded Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then the relevant Minister, that national insurance numbers were the only practical way of providing an objective database against which one could check the names. That is now law and it has worked. Ministers should learn from that experience rather than reinventing the wheel.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that using national insurance numbers and data sharing between local authorities would help to overcome not only the problem of people who are entitled to vote not being on the electoral register but of those who live in more than one place voting twice in general elections? The latter is especially applicable to students who are registered in their university town where they live temporarily and in their home town where they have been brought up. There is an opportunity to vote twice in general elections and no easy way of tracking that and ensuring that it does not happen.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We support the central online register of electors. It will make it much easier to ensure that there is no duplication or the possibility or risk of it, and enable checking to occur.
	Both dates of birth and signatures have flaws as personal identifiers. There is no central electronic database against which one can check a person's date of birth. Perhaps the Minister will say that one is planned or imminent but, as far as I know, it is not possible to check a date of birth and it is difficult to check the accuracy of signatures. In Northern Ireland, people are trying to check signatures by electronic means. However, the national insurance number has an objective, separate database against which information can be checked.

Barbara Keeley: How does the hon. Gentleman believe that local authorities would check national insurance numbers? Conservative Members appear to be running away with that idea. There is no existing mechanism whereby they can do that.

Oliver Heald: In Northern Ireland, it is done by computer and data matching the two sources. When I was a Social Security Minister years ago, the Minister suggested, in a different context, that we should data match local authority records against the national insurance computer. As far as I know, there is no reason why that should not happen. It might be complicated and the Minister might have a better answer. However, there is no electronic reason for not being able to make that comparison, as is done in Northern Ireland.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a matter of getting a result in which people can believe? He knows that, in Bradford, the police have investigated more than 250 cases of alleged electoral fraud since the general election. People in my part of the world would prefer to have a robust system of voting and registering so that the police can concentrate on catching thugs, muggers and those who damage society. People in Bradford would regard my hon. Friend's proposal of using national insurance numbers as a common-sense way of allowing the police to do the job that they want them to do rather than investigating electoral fraud.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has made his worries about what happened in Bradford clear to the House, and rightly so. It is easy for us to get so involved in the detail of these matterswhich we should do, of coursethat we forget the deep shock and outrage that the public felt when all those allegations of fraud in the system, particularly postal vote fraud, first came to light. People were deeply shocked that such a level of fraud could exist in our democracy. Indeed, the judge in the Birmingham case was outraged at what he saw as the complacency of Ministers. It is easy to get into the Whitehall way of thinking, without realising that people want to feel that we have a top-class democracy, a democracy to be proud of. After all, we go round lecturing other countries about it

Eric Forth: I do not.

Oliver Heald: Certainly, my right hon. Friend always has not. We ought to be able to feel that we have a democracy that is free of fraud.

John Bercow: It seems variously and rather curiously to have been suggested that the use of national insurance numbers in these circumstances would be either obstructive, intrusive or impractical. My hon. Friend is right to question that assumption. As he has been talking about the need for joined-up government, does he agree that the Government have adopted a rather inconsistent mode of operation, given that they want to introduce identity cards at a cost that they will not calculate, for a benefit that they cannot quantify, and at a risk to personal liberty that they dare not admit?

Oliver Heald: As usual, my hon. Friend gets right to the nub of the issue. This is totally inconsistent. The document about the central online register of electors to which the Minister referred raises the possibility of ID cards being used as a database to check these very   matters. There is obviously a great deal of inconsistency here.
	The Electoral Commission has not accepted my full proposal involving national insurance numbers, dates of birth and signatures, but it has said that it would be right to use a signature and a date of birth. Ministers have said no to that, however. They can assess the mood in the country on the issue, and they are saying that it needs to be tackled as matter of urgency with a national solution. They have therefore come up with a transitional scheme, which would provide for voluntary registration using a signature and a date of birth. If people wished to apply for a postal vote, they would have to make the same information available. That does not go as far as we would wish. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has tabled a new clause on this matter and will explain his proposals in more detail. It seems wrong that the Minister is not even prepared to go so far as to accept our fairly anodyne compromise measure.
	The Electoral Commission criticises the Government's proposals for introducing piloting in a bottom-up fashion, explaining that the wrong sort of authorities will apply to take part. It also says that such pilot schemes will do nothing to counter fraud or increase participation, although everyone agrees that those things are necessary. It also adds that the schemes would add little value, considering the evidence already available from Northern Ireland, which is essentially a bigger pilot in a more problematic area than any local authority would be able to provide. It says that an important lesson from Northern Ireland relates to the importance of introducing individual registration, together with a very active package of measures to increase the number of people registering to vote. We will support not only our own amendments but the compromise suggested by the Electoral Commission, assuming that that option is provided to us.
	I want to talk about the system of individual voter registration more generally. Surely it is old fashioned to have household registration these days. The time of the idea of having a head of the household has passed. Many of the households that we are considering are shared homes in which a group of friends live together or in which some other relationship exists. The idea that we should return to the patriarchal system of the head of the household[Interruption.] I know that the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs does not like me to describe the system as patriarchal. She prefers matriarchal, and I must give her credit for that. Surely, however, the days in which this old-fashioned idea could exist are gone.

Harriet Harman: There is a serious point to be made here, which I have been provoked into making. One of the critiques of household registration forms is that they are filled in by the head of the household. However, the forms can be filled in by anyone in the household, and the practical reality is that, even where the man is still regarded as the head of the household, it is usually the woman who fills in the household registration form. It is not filled in by Dad, it is filled in by Mum. If I support household registration, it is not because I have defaulted to supporting patriarchyperish the thoughtbut because I recognise that this is one of the very many things that mums do for the whole family.

Oliver Heald: I well remember reading the right hon. and learned Lady's book on this subject, and it was most illuminating. I consider myself a new man as a result.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point is going to be relevant to the debate and to the new clause that we are discussing.

John Bercow: I hope so, too, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be constructive. In April 1992, when I stood as the Conservative candidate against the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), I encountered three households, two of whose doors were opened by a man, and one by a woman, at which I was told that the person answering the door had filled in the form for the whole household. However, I do not think that my cause would have been advanced in any case, because all three had decided en masse to vote Labour, and, sadly, I lost by 8,919 votes.

Oliver Heald: Since then, however, my hon. Friend has managed to build himself a majority of 18,000

John Bercow: It is 18,129.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has obviously learned from his experience.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not have a dispute over the size of individual majorities. May we now have a debate on the new clause?

Oliver Heald: The serious point is that many households do not have what could be described as a nuclear family. For example, groups of friends share houses or flats. A document addressed to only one of them often ends up in the bin. These days, we need to take an individual approach. After all, we have one man, or one woman, per vote, and everyone is entitled to that proper attention. If we tackle this issue on an individual basis, registration will rise. That is what people have found in Northern Ireland, now that there is an honest register there.

David Heath: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) sat down rather abruptly and caught me by surprise.
	I welcome the attitude of the Minister and her colleagues in the Department towards our consideration of the Bill. We have made progress in all sorts of ways, sometimes in surprising areas, given the initial response that we received in Committee. Common sense obviously prevailed at a later stage, for which I am grateful. I must say that it contrasts markedly with the attitude displayed by a previous incarnation when we discussed the Bill that became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. At that time, no attempt was made to reach a consensus; indeed, a very partisan view was taken.
	The amendments, and this part of the Bill, highlight a key aspect of parliamentary drafting. As I tried to translate the Electoral Commission's proposal into amendments I was struck by the extraordinary complexity of our statutory electoral arrangements, although in this context clarity is essential. I do not know how on earth any electoral returning officer can find his or her way through the thickets of the statutes that they must implement, let alone someone lacking expert advice.
	I think that in future we should consider electoral arrangements as candidates for consolidation. When we amend them by statute we should start with a clean sheet, almost ab initio, and absorb the earlier statute into a new Bill dealing with all the rules, rather than expecting returning officers to consult the Representation of the People Acts 1983, 1985 and 2000, and all the other relevant Acts. They cross-reference in a bewildering way, and even skilled draftsmen and lawyers find it difficult to manoeuvre their way around them.
	Throughout the debate there has been a degree of good will between Front Benchers, and indeed between Back Benchers who spoke in Committee and on the Floor of the House. However, we have been presented with a false dichotomy of approach, as though one side was saying, Never mind the quality, feel the width and the other side was saying, Never mind the width, feel the qualityas if some can think only in terms of increasing the number of people who are properly registered, and others can think only in terms of potential abuse of the system and the need to deal with fraud. I do not believe that those are alternatives. I believe that we can have both a properly representative register, and one that prevents fraud wherever possible.

Jeremy Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: Yes, but I will not give way repeatedly, because we need to deal with other important parts of the Bill and we are taking rather a long time over the first group of new clauses and amendments.

Jeremy Wright: Is there not a third dimension? I am thinking of the effect of a proper registration system that would command respect among the population generally, and particularly among those who vote by post or feel inclined to do so. It would help if we had a system of registration for postal voting that made those who might vote by post feel more confident that their votes would be counted properly. That would increase turnout and deal with registration.

David Heath: I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman is right, although I cannot state categorically that I know that to be the case. It remains to be proven. I certainly think it important for people to feel a degree of confidence in the system, and my great worrywhich is shared by many outside the Chamber, including the Electoral Commissionis that at present they do not. I believe that over the recent electoral period there was a catastrophic loss of confidence in, particularly, the efficacy of the anti-fraud measures applying to the postal vote. The Government are being thoroughly struthious in not recognising the urgency of the situation: they simply do not want to know what is going on around them. That is unfortunate, because, as I have said, I respect what the Minister is attempting to do, and many of the motivations behind the Bill.
	As the Minister knows, I have arguedpersonally and on behalf of my partyin favour of individual registration and personal identifiers. I do not accept that national insurance numbers are the best solution, because I agree with others that they could pose an obstacle to people who are not familiar with their national insurance numbers. I was told by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that not knowing one's national insurance number was a middle-class affectation, but I believe that many people do not know theirs, and would be deterred from registering simply because they did not have them to handand by the time they had got around to thinking about finding them, the time to register would have passed. That is a genuine concern, of which we should at least be aware.

Eric Forth: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that I should respect and take seriously the votes of those who cannot be bothered to find out their national insurance numbers so that they can register?

David Heath: I am suggesting that we should take seriously and respect the vote of every person in the country who is eligible to vote. We do not yet apply an idleness test to the popular franchise; nor do we apply an intelligence test, or any other sort of test. We have a universal franchise in this country. I respect that principle, and I hoped that the Conservative party did as well.

John Bercow: That is different from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Eric Forth: It is nowadays.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the view of the Conservative party is different from that of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That is transparently the case, but then it is so different from that of many Conservatives. But I must not allow myself to be diverted.
	As I have said, I am attracted to individual registration and personal identifiers, but I understand Labour Members' concerns about the potential deterrent effect, although I do not necessarily agree with them. We have been trying to reach a common view, so I am prepared to accept that there is at least a risk. I hope that we shall engage in a vigorous attempt to increase the number of people on the register, and I am heartened by proposals in the London boroughs to maximise the effectiveness of the drive for registration. I hope that that succeeds, because it is long overdue, and for numerous reasons London causes particular concern when it comes to registration. National insurance numbers may pose the risk of a deterrent, although I do not think that the same applies to signatures and dates of birth. I think that everyone can cope with those on their own behalf.
	Let us go some way towards meeting the concerns of the public and the Electoral Commission. Let us for a moment park our concerns about individual registration and consider personal identifiers, and how they might be applied at least to the most urgent and crucial parts of the electoral process: the postal vote and the absent voters list.
	The Electoral Commission came up with what it called a transitional arrangement. It said, Okay, we will not require everyone to provide personal identifiers on registration yet. We will allow people to provide personal identifiers, but we will not demand it if they are to vote in person. However, we will certainly not send ballot papers through the post to people unknown without checking that they are who they say they are. Those who wish to be included in an absent voters list are required to have already added their signatures and dates of birth to the electoral register. A test can then be carried outI accept that it is not the most rigorous test in the worldto establish that they are the people whose names were put on the register in the first instance. I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that that is a minimal requirement if we are to maintain the integrity of the system and restore confidence in it. I do not believe that it is the perfect answer and neither does the Electoral Commission; indeed, it makes it plain that it sees it as a first step. It says in its briefing for this debate that it is a transitional scheme that would
	act as the first step towards full individual registration . . . a household form would continue to be used for the canvass, and no additional information would be required from an elector in order to vote in the ordinary way at a polling station . . . unlike geographically based pilot schemes, postal votes across Great Britain would immediately benefit from improved security while requiring no change to the registration process for the majority who wish to vote in a polling station.
	That is the difference between the Electoral Commission's proposal and the Government's. First, the former proposal would have nationwide applicability; secondly, it would immediately improve the security of the postal voting arrangements; and, thirdly, it would not affect registration in its basic form or people's ability to vote in person at a polling station.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman said that I gave factually wrong information on the effect of the Electoral Commission's proposal and of his amendment No. 8, which seeks to give effect to that proposal. He says that, in his view, the commission's proposal is that those who do not provide their signature and date of birth on the annual canvass or subsequent registration should be debarred from a postal vote application. That is not its proposal and neither is it the effect of his amendment. In fact, his amendment would give effect to the commission's actual proposal, which it set out in writing. I went into this issue, via officials, with the commission because I wanted to establish whether there would be a security gain. The commission says the following of its third way scheme, which the hon. Gentleman is proposing:
	However, it would be mandatory for those wishing to vote by post or proxy to provide their signature and date of birth when they registerwhether on the annual canvass form
	we all agree on that
	individual rolling registration form
	we all agree on that
	or application to vote by post or proxy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the right hon. and learned Lady was trying to be helpful, but she really should not answer the debate on the basis of an intervention.

David Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her interpretation of the Electoral Commission's intention, but let me read out what it intends in its own words, rather than hers, because this is an important issue:
	The intention of this new clause and amendments is to remove clauses for the piloting of the collection of personal identifiers and instead provide a requirement for all absent voters at local and UK parliamentary elections to include in their applications for an absent vote details of their date of birth and a signature, which must have been previously registered in respect of that person. Only those who have provided these personal identifiers are to be included on absent voter lists.
	That is, I think, exactly what I said. The right hon. and learned Lady may well query the efficacy of my amendments in putting that proposal into effect, and she may well be right to do soI do not know. I have done my best in dealing with an extraordinarily complex area of electoral law. But she surely cannot query the commission's intention, or mine, in tabling these amendments, which are quite clear. They provide the lock that we all want to see.
	I do not believe that the pilot scheme will do what the right hon. and learned Lady says it will do. For a start, I doubt whether it will be completed to the time scale that she envisages. I do not believe that, under her proposals, we will go into the next general election with a more secure voting system than the current one. Nor do I believe that it will provide a proper test, given that the pilot schemes are to be based in volunteer local authorities that will opt into the scheme. The authorities that give rise to the most concern about the lack of registration are exactly those that will not volunteer. They will not enter into a scheme introducing personal identifiers of any kind, for precisely the reasons that she has already stated, so we will not have a proper reflection of the efficacy, or otherwise, of the scheme.
	My worry is that a few already well-performing local authoritiesprobably those in the shire counties and the leafier suburbswill enter into this arrangement and provide us with information that, frankly, is of very little value. We will not get such information from inner-city London, Manchester, Birmingham or Bradford; we will not get it from those places where it is recognised that such abuses happen, in the light of prosecutions that have already been made. Our great worry is that we will miss the opportunity to get a better system in place.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was too forceful and tough in pressing for more honest registration, which I fully support. He now seems to be saying that we do indeed need more honest registration. Does he not agree that the scheme that he has laid before the House, which builds on the Electoral Commission's findings, is still very inadequate and could be wide open to abuse?

David Heath: I do accept that and so does the commissionit calls it a transitional scheme. It is an attempt to win the support of a Government who do not want to move at all. I do not think that I said that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire was being too tough. On Second Reading, in Committee of the whole House and in Committee Upstairswe had a shared objective in terms of what we want the Government to implement. I happen to disagree with his view that national insurance numbers are the personal identifier to use, but that disagreement is minimal compared with the difference between having personal identifiers and not having them. I am simply suggesting that this scheme, inadequate though it may be, is an improvement on the status quo. It would help to restore confidence in the postal voting system.
	I am grateful for Conservative Front Benchers' support for my amendments and if I have the opportunity to do so I should like to test the House's opinion. I am not persuaded that the pilot schemes that the right hon. and learned Lady proposes will have anything like the same efficacy in dealing with the perceived problem.

Oliver Heald: Of course, there would be two stages in the process: registering the signature and date of birth, and the ability to check that information. The Electoral Commission states in its letter:
	Everyone who wanted to vote by post or proxy would be required to register their signature and date of birth, so that their identity could be checked when they applied for or cast their absent vote.
	In other words, those two stages, which include the opportunity to check such information, provide an element of security, although we would of course like to go further. Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the following point? The last time we debated this transitional proposal, Ministers said that it would make the annual registration form very complicated. However, I believe that the commission has produced a draft form, which they have supplied to Ministers, showing how easy the process would be.

David Heath: Precisely, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for both of those points. He is absolutely right. It is no good having a lock without a key, or a key without a lock. It is no good asking people to sign an absent vote form if there is no way to check their signatures, or if there is no other information with which to identify them. The Minister is worried about that simple barrier, whereas we are looking for both the key and lock that will ensure the integrity of the voting system. I hope that the proposal commends itself to the House.
	As I said, it is my intention at some stage to seek the House's opinion on what the Electoral Commission has proposed, if possible.

Eric Forth: I am not convinced that the Government are serious about this matter. In her usual rather charming manner, the Minister gave the game away when she said that none of this was her idea. She has come to the House and said, I never really believed in this at all but I've had my arm twisted so, a bit reluctantly, I've brought forward this half-baked scheme that I do not really want and am not sure will really work.
	That suggests to me that the Government are not remotely serious about the substance of the proposalsa fact that emerged several times in the Minister's opening speech. She has tried to make us believe that the Government want these proposals to be adopted, but the Bill, the Government's new clauses and amendments, and the Minister's contribution all give the lie to that. The Government do not really want to make the electoral system at all robust. All too easily, even a half-determined person could circumvent or evade what the Government propose.
	The Billand the new clauses and amendmentstalks about dates of birth and signatures, but how robust can they possibly be when it comes to assessing whether a person is entitled to vote, or whether the person originally registered is the same as the one casting a vote? The use of the national insurance number has been mentioned repeatedly in the debate, and that would make the system significantly more robust than would the use of a date of birth or a signature.
	The Bill suggests that people who want to play a part in deciding the Government of this country need not be bothered, or able, to find their national insurance numbers. That strikes me as more than a little bizarre. I confess that I believe that making registering to vote a little difficult is a good thing. If we expect people to have sufficient judgment to decide who should represent them in Parliament and govern the country, it is not asking too much of them to take the minimal step involved in establishing their identity with the registration authorities.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Has he thought about the following anomalythat this same Government think that people should be able to supply all sorts of extremely complicated and difficult information in tax declarations? That is what the law requires them to do.

Eric Forth: That is correct. On numerous occasions in everyday lifesuch as when we apply for passports, driving licences, benefits and so onwe are asked to provide a lot of information and proof of identity. Casting a vote overrides all those activities, as it determines representation in this House and which party will make up the Government of the day, but the suggestion seems to be that it is too much to ask for something beyond a name and an unverified signature. That is completely the wrong way round.
	The responsibility to register rests with the individual, and rightly so. The more individual that responsibility is, the better. Most people claim these days that individualism is good and that decisions are best made as close as possible to the individual.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman says that filling in the form is up to individuals, but what happens if people cannot read the form?

Eric Forth: Reasonable provision for dealing with that should be made right across Government. Proper assistance should be given, in a proper way.

Chris Ruane: What assistance does the right hon. Gentleman think should be given?

Eric Forth: Very simply, a person in such circumstances should be able to nominate someone who can help them with the process, although both parties must be properly identified. I see no difficulty about making such provision for what will be, happily, a minority of cases. However, this debate has clearly identified the risk, to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred, of widespread fraud in the electoral system. Preventing that fraud must be the thrust of our endeavours with this part of the Bill.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman mentions a minority of cases. The functional illiteracy rate across the UK is said to be between 10 and 15 per cent. In poorer areas, it is a lot higher. How do we get over the problem of very low registration rates in poorer areas. In parts of my own constituency, for example, it is as low as 76 per cent., and in parts of Aberystwyth it is 52 per cent.

Eric Forth: That is an amazing indictment of theeducation system that the hon. Gentleman's Government have presided over for more than eight years. For him to admit that illiteracy is rampant in his part of the world says a lot about what is happening in the education system there. Surely, if someone is incapable of reading and has not sought or been offered remedial action of the kind that the Government constantly boast about but are obviously failing to provide in his constituency, and indeed throughout Wales, his remarks must be noted and repeated often, not least by me. It is certainly not beyond the wit of the electoral registration authorities to provide proper and verifiable assistance to someone who claims to be incapable either of reading or of understanding what is required to register for a vote.

Chris Ruane: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of people who are 18 plus were educated under a Conservative Government.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman should probably stop digging at this stage and allow the debate to move on.

Oliver Heald: What sort of councils does Wales have? It has Labour councils.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend reminds me that the overwhelming majority of councils in Wales are run by Labour, and they are the local education authorities. The hon. Gentleman ought to be somewhat careful. Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not want mehowever tempted I am, and however much I should enjoy itto be diverted from the thrust of my remarks and into a subsidiary debate about the appalling quality of education in Wales, delivered by appalling Labour councils. You would not want me to do that, and I shall not submit to the temptation.
	The point I was making before the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) was so very helpful to me was that whereas it is a matter for an individual to have and to take responsibility for registering to vote, the opposite side of the coin is that it is the responsibility of the electoral registration authorities to do all they can and should do to verify that persons are who they say they are and are entitled to vote. I am not yet convinced that any of the mechanisms in the Bill, or indeed in the new clauses and amendments, go far enough in that direction. I should have thought that the national insurance number was probably the very least we could ask for. I should rather like some photographic identification to be given, such as the horrible new-style driving licences or the horrible European Community passports we are now all obliged to carry. There are a whole number of ways in which this could be pushed forward to send out the message that we want to ensure that someone who is claiming to be eligible to vote in elections in this country is who he or she says and is entitled to cast a vote. I see none of that, sadly, in the Bill.
	We shall, I suppose, have to support the new clauses and amendments that take us a small way in that direction. Such is the nature of things. I did ask my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) earlier, when looking at amendment No. 17, what reassurance we have when someone applies and provides a signature and date of birth but says they do not have a national insurance number. I am not entirely sure he gave me an answer, so I shall give him the chance to have another go if he wants. Is there to be nothing else? Presumably in that case we are going simply to trust the date of birth and the signature, and not require any alternative to the national insurance number. That strikes me as taking us not very much further forward. My hon. Friend seemed to think that that provided some sort of assurance, but it almost writes a loophole into the amendment.

Greg Knight: rose

John Bercow: rose

Eric Forth: I shall give way first to my right hon. Friend.

Greg Knight: If my right hon. Friend looks again at amendment No. 17, he will see it appears to make it incumbent on the person who claims not to have a national insurance number to make a statement in those terms. Would that person not therefore be committing an offence by making a false statement with the sole purpose of securing a vote?

Eric Forth: My right hon. Friend is an eminent lawyer, so he must be right on that point, but I am not sure about the follow-up. We have to try to provide mechanisms that at least make it relatively easy and secure for the electoral registration authorities to provide the follow-up to which my right hon. Friend refers. I cannot see that that would necessarily be the case as matters stand. The mere statement that one does not have a national insurance number is not robust enough to allow the authorities to follow up in the way that he and I would like.

John Bercow: It was common ground in our earlier exchanges that relatively few people do not have national insurance numbers, so surelyon the balance of probabilityin many cases when people say that they do not have such a number they really mean that they do not have it with them or they cannot remember it. Should it not be incumbent on that individualas opposed to being incumbent merely on the authorityto check the veracity of that statement?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. We need to make a distinction between the point at which an application is made to be included in the register and the point at which the voter turns up to vote at the polling station or seeks to use a postal vote, which is now all too freely and readily available. In either case, it is not asking too much for someone to provide their national insurance number. If people are employees, if they pay tax or if they claim benefits, their national insurance numbers are readily and freely available to them. I cannot believe that a significant number of people would find it difficult or impossible to produce that number.

Chris Ruane: rose

Eric Forth: Oh, he is going to try again[Interruption.]

Chris Ruane: I have no wish to know the right hon. Gentleman's national insurance number. I hope that he will get the problem in perspective. The response to a question that I tabled about the number of offences at parliamentary and local government elections in the past 10 years revealed that there had been no parliamentary election postal ballot fraud offences and only one or two in local government elections. While every case of postal ballot fraud is serious, the greater crime is the 3.5 million to 4 million people missing from the electoral register.

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman gives the answer to his own question, however inadvertently. The fact that we do not have prosecutions reveals the fact that the present system is so porous, so full of loopholes, so weak and so vulnerable that the authorities do not have the ability, the power or the mechanisms to discover where the fraud is occurring or who is on the register who should not be.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend may wish to comment on the remarks by the electoral commissioner in Birmingham, who said last year that
	no serious independent investigation was ever carried out into postal vote fraud. In short, there is likely to be no evidence of fraud if you do not look for it.
	Is not the problem that insufficient attention has been paid to a serious risk to our system?

Eric Forth: Indeed, and one can only guess why that is the case and what the motivation is at Government or local authority level. There is now widespread recognition that postal ballot fraud is a serious problem and that it has to be gripped. Labour Members, and even Ministers, who say that we would far rather have lots of people on the register who should not be there just in case the odd person has been incapable of ensuringor too idle to ensurethat their vote is registered have got things completely the wrong way round. In my view, we should welcome those on the register who really want to vote, but we should ensure that people are not on the register if they are not entitled to vote.

Peter Robinson: I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I was at another meeting in the House. I come from a part of the United Kingdom that already uses national insurance numbers as part of the identification process and we have had no problem with it. We have higher unemployment rates in Northern Ireland and probably more people trying to hide their identities, but there has been no difficulty. Not one person has ever raised the issue with me.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to come on to Northern Ireland so his intervention is timely. The clue is probably that the quality of education in Northern Ireland is almost certainly much better than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, which would go a long way to explain why the excellent citizens of Northern Ireland are not only capable of understanding what is required of them but are also willing to provide the information. They regard voting as important, and are well educated and able to use their vote responsibly.
	That leads us to a simple point that has been made   several times, but which bears repetition: if thesafeguards envisaged in the new clauses and amendments can be implemented in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman has just verified, why on earth do we think that we are so weak and incapable in the rest of the United Kingdom that we cannot do the same thing? That leads me right back to where I came in. I cannot help getting the feeling that the Minister is trying to hide behind the pilots to ensure that the whole system is protracted and excuses can be made to demonstrate how difficult it is. The process can be delayed, ideally, beyond the next election andwho knows?beyond the one after that if Labour happens by some mischance still to be in government. We must try to move things on, demonstrate that we are taking the matter seriously and get something on to the statute book that challenges individuals to register and authorities to ensure that those who should be are on the register and that those who should not be are not. That should not be beyond the wit of man; it seems, sadly, to be beyond the wit of the Government.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) who has correctly drawn attention to the growing worries about the integrity of our electoral system. Like him, I was proud to grow up in a democratic country, with the mother of Parliaments, which in those days was sovereign over all matters relating to government in Britain and was elected on a universal franchise that had the confidence of the British people. It is a great sadness that we witness in election after election, to local and national government, growing fear and concernfrom those who run the electoral system, the independent people, as well as from some politicians and political partiesabout how accurate and complete the electoral register is.
	Like the Government, I want everyone eligible to vote in my constituency to have the opportunity to register and when registered to have the opportunity to vote. No one on the Conservative Benches wants to deny bona fide British citizens their right to vote. We hold it as a great treasure and we want a system that allows us to continue to do so.
	We do not think that our constituents are incapable of providing basic information to register to vote. We know that the Government expect them to provide an astonishing array of information to do practically everything else in our society, often under duress from the force of laws recently enacted by the Government. To comply with tax regulations, my constituents are expected to marshal huge amounts of information to return to the authorities on all their financial and savings transactions and their income. If I want to deposit a modest sum from my modest taxed income in a bank or building society, I have to take along my passport or driving licence, both of which contain a photograph of me, and a utility bill showing both who I am and where I live. If I do not have those bits of information, the bank or building society, under Government and European rules, can refuse to take my modest sum of money or can even say that I might be guilty of some offence because I may have come by the money through improper means. That is grossly over the top, but the Government who say that we must do that to deposit a small sum of money in a bank account that was legally set up with all the right information now tell the House that people need provide no additional information, apart from their name, to gain the extremely important privilege of voting.

Oliver Heald: Would my right hon. Friend care to reflect on the form for claiming pension credit, which is 13 pages long and includes the request to give one's national insurance number?

John Redwood: That is another extremely good example, because the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has been running down the Welsh education system under both Governments, seems to imply that a large minority of his constituents are quite incapable of reading or filling in any form at all. They must therefore need all sorts of additional help to get any of the basic benefits that are available under this and previous Governments, or to comply with any of the tax and other rules that the Government have laid down.
	Presumably, the hon. Gentleman largely supports the Government and believes that they have found ways around that, so that people can get assistance if their literacy is stretched to fill in the tax credit or pension credit forms, their tax returns or whatever they need to do to gain benefits and to avoid paying the taxes that they do not need to pay. Yet he now says that they are incapable of getting the same assistance to do something that is much easierproviding a national insurance number.
	I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asks me to vote for an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in due course because it is slightly better than the Government's proposal, I will loyally support him, but I am glad that we had the admission from the Liberal Democrats that their amendment does not amount to very much and will do very little to prevent the fraud that we now think is all too obvious in our electoral system, particularly surrounding postal votes.
	It would give me greater pleasure to support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshirethe only serious proposal that we have before us todayas it goes some way to tightening up the system. I am sure that he would agree that it would not be perfect, but it would be a lot better than the current system or than the very modest Liberal Democrat proposal. The need to supply a national insurance number will make people think twice. They would have to commit another fraud if they wished to carry on with a fraudulent request before voting. There also would be an opportunity to check against the national insurance number records and to check that, if they were lying, they were doing so consistentlythat they had lied at both opportunities, when they first registered to vote and when they registered for a postal vote. That would be made more difficult, and making it more difficult in this connection gives us a little more security.
	I hope that, if the proposal were to pass, the Government would understand that they also need to clean up their act not just on legal and illegal registration to vote, but on national insurance numbers. Many hundreds of thousands of such numbers have been issued over and above the number of legally settled workers that we believe are in the country, thus showing that the national insurance number system itself is far from perfect. To give even greater security, if the Government were to accept my hon. Friend's proposition, we would need not just to introduce it as a security device for electoral registration, but to ask the Treasury to go through the national insurance lists to try to get the number of legally issued national insurance numbers into line with the number of legally settled and working people in our country. That would give us a further precaution against fraud.

James Gray: Another problem with national insurance numbers is that a small number of people in the United Kingdom are not entitled to such numbers at all because they have never worked and never received any form of benefit. No matter how hard they try, as I have done for a number of my constituents, they cannot be issued with a national insurance number, unless they have applied for a benefit at some stage in their lives or worked. Therefore, the use of NI numbers in the way that has been described would not be easy.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right, but my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has thought of that excellent point, which is why his proposal includes provision for the very small number of people who do not have a national insurance number and cannot legally claim one: they can make a declaration to that effect. However, I hope that the Government wake up to the serious problem that the country now faces. With the mother of Parliaments and the democracy that most of us prize very highly, we have a serious problem of illegal registration and deception or fraud in our voting system. That is disfiguring our country's democracy and is beginning to be commented on by people outside this country, and one wonders whether, soon, instead of our sending people to oversee other people's elections in emerging democracies, overseas people will have to come here to oversee our democracy because it is becoming a scandal.

Mark Tami: Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that there is a serious problem of under-registration?

John Redwood: There might be in some places. I began my remarks by saying that I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman's party that everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity to register and vote if they choose. I do not believe in compulsory voting, but we should say to people that we think that voting is most important and something that they should treasure. Of course, we want to make it straightforward for people to get their vote if they wish to use it. However, we do not wish to have a system that is so open to abuse that those who wish to manipulate it may do so easily. We know how difficult it is for prosecutions to be mounted, even by returning officers who have let the Electoral Commission and others know that they think that there has been serious abuse, yet cannot get evidence because the system is too loose and it is difficult to pin everything down.
	I hope that the Government wake up. There could be cross-party agreement on the matter. For our part, we are keen to further the Government's aim of more full registration of all who are eligible to vote. We hope that they will be equally serious about wishing to get rid of fraud and impersonation.

James Duddridge: It is a great honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who touched on several points that I would like to extend by reflecting back on something that I said in an intervention on the Minister, especially regarding financial services and the lack of efficacy of signatures as personal identifiers. I realise that this is late in the day, given that the Minister said that the financial services industry was not consulted, but perhaps she will reflect on the debate and consider engaging some members of the industry during the pilots because they have a lot to offer.
	I cannot say that I am an expert in fraud

Philip Davies: I am delighted to hear it.

James Duddridge: I thank my hon. Friend for correcting my obvious mistake. I am not an expert on fraud prevention, but I was involved in the banking system in both the UK and Africa for several years, so I know that a lot of research has been done on personal indicators. We should bear in mind that the matter is in the financial interest of banks, especially as the House has legislated that banks, not the customer, must pay for mistakes. Banks have to make billions of decisions worldwide about whether or not to pay that are based on personal indicators and personal information. Millions of such decisions are taken in the United Kingdom.
	The banking system has moved away from signatures. Dates of birth are useful and, interestingly, national insurance numbers are especially useful for complicated and expensive financial products for which risk is greater. I have not heard anyone mention mothers' maiden names[Interruption.] I apologise; I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mention them. Mothers' maiden names are especially useful because although they are good personal indicators because they are known by everyone, they are not reproduced on many documents, so they are unlikely to be of much use to a fraudster.
	We should consider when personal indicators are used. In the banking system, certain indicators are useful for different distribution channels. If the Bill is to stand the test of time in the longer term, we will need to examine different delivery channels for voting, be that postal voting, or using the internet, phones and so forth.

Chris Ruane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to clarify the name and constituency of the current speaker?

James Gray: The Annunciator has changed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has found the answer to his question with just a little glance around. Otherwise, there are excellent publications that repay close attention with which he may know every Member of the House.

James Duddridge: I apologise for my personal failing of not being better known and not plugging my constituency multiple times in every debate.
	Signatures are useful when people meet face to face, but photo ID could be more useful in the longer term as a personal identifier that would allow us to move away entirely from national insurance numbers and signatures. I hope that I am not broadening the debate too much, but many people have talked about fraud regarding information that is provided. National insurance numbers could be used in such a way. It would be of benefit to consider holding a pilot using some of the fraud prevention systems that the banks use to examine spurious information that is provided as a personal identifier. That would alleviate the problem of having anagrams of I'm a made-up voter and the ubiquitous Mickey Mouse-type submission on electoral forms and, as we see as Members of Parliament, on petitions. It could be useful, and I am mindful of the Minister's comments about a centralised web-based computer system that would facilitate a form of interaction at a national level to validate and spot trends.
	I know that it is late in the debate to raise issues on personal identifiers, but there is an opportunity to consider some of the pilots. Although I am not bold enough to disagree entirely with my Front Bench[Interruption.] Perhaps I will do so just this once, to create a reputation so that my constituency of Rochford and Southend, East is known. We could flip things on the head and in one pilot severely reduce the amount of information that is needed to get on to the register while severely increasing the information we need, in banking terms, at the point of salethe point of voting. That would be useful when people sign up remotely and by different methods, and it would increase overall registration, which I would welcome.

Jeremy Wright: I will happily support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Indeed, I would much rather support the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we use national insurance numbers to ensure that the register has integrity. I am happy to do either or both of those things because I do not want, and I hope that no other hon. Member would want, to have the same experience that I, and I am sure many others, had during the last general election campaign of the unwillingness of those who had applied for postal votes to use them because they had insufficient faith that the postal vote would not be interfered with.
	Although we are talking about registration, the integrity of the register and the voting system as a whole has a substantial effect on whether those people cast their vote. They do not have a choice between voting by post or voting in person at the ballot box. Their choice is between voting by post or not voting at all. If the House attempts to increase registration, which I fully accept is a desirable goal, but, in the course of doing so, damages turnout, that will be a strange and undesirable outcome. The House has an obligation, and we in this debate have an obligation, to find a way in which we can make a register as safe, reliable and complete as it can possibly be. The proposals that give us the most safe, reliable and complete register, from whichever side of the House they come, are the ones that should command the support of the whole House.
	The objections by Labour Members that the national insurance number would do even greater damage to the level of registration do not hold water. It is improbable that the reason people do not register now is because of the obligations on them, by which I mean the obligation to give their name, signature or, in the future, national insurance number. The reasons for not registering are far more fundamental than that. I agree, as I am sure does pretty much every hon. Member, that something serious has to be done to address that level of disengagement, but adding the requirement to supply a signature or a national insurance number would not damage registration.

Mark Tami: If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the case, how does he explain the collapse in registration in Northern Ireland, which was far beyond anything expected as a result of concerns about fraud?

Jeremy Wright: We would have to look carefully at what other circumstances prevailed at that election.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend will know from his work on the Committee that the Electoral Commission looked at the question of whether or not the 120,000 fall in the number of voters was a genuine reflection of an accurate register, and it found that it was. It was not a case of people who were entitled to vote being taken off the register.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend has encapsulated the issue perfectly. We want to achieve the maximum registration of people who are entitled to vote. We do not simply want to increase the numberwe want to ensure that people who are entitled to vote have the opportunity and are encouraged to do so. People who should not have the opportunity to vote, because they are not so entitled, should not be on the register in the first place. It is important to look at the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland and the reasons why turnout was not as great as it had been previously. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressed clear support for a system using national insurance numbers, as proposed by the Opposition.

Barbara Keeley: The hon. Gentleman is talking about efforts to achieve the safest and most complete electoral system. First, to return to a point that I made earlier, he was present when the Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from the Electoral Commission. Its chairman, Sam Younger, talked about the tension between participation and security. We are juggling with a dilemma, as we cannot achieve the safest and most complete system at the same time. Sam Younger said:
	we do not feel national insurance numbers are something we should be asking people to provide at registration.
	Secondly, I am surprised

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has taken the hint. An intervention is an intervention. If she has an argument to develop, she should seek to catch my eye.

Jeremy Wright: I accept what the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said. I was present at that hearing, and the Electoral Commission has indeed come to the conclusion that national insurance numbers are not the best way forward. I disagree. As I have said, it is vital that everyone who is on the register and who is entitled to vote should have absolute confidence that everyone with whom they share the register is entitled to be on it and that the system has integrity. We should therefore seek to make the system as safe as possible.

Peter Robinson: May I help the hon. Gentleman by clearing up the reason for the fall in registration in Northern Ireland? It is fairly well established that, in the first instance, there was a significant reduction because some people should not have been on the register in the first place. In subsequent years, there was a lesser reduction because of annual registration.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Heald: rose

Chris Ruane: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) would like to indicate to whom he is giving way.

Jeremy Wright: I am giving way, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and then to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).

Oliver Heald: It has been suggested that the numbers in Northern Ireland fell for an improper reason, but that is not what the Electoral Commission said. It said:
	We do not agree with the assertion that 120,000 or so persons were disenfranchised as a result of the new legislation being introduced.
	The evidence that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) confirms that that is the case.

Jeremy Wright: I agree, as the judges say, and I have nothing to add. It is entirely felicitous that I should be able to rise to make a speech and not have to do so.

Chris Ruane: If the hon. Gentleman is holding up Northern Ireland as a paragon to be copied regarding the security of the vote, may I remind him that, initially, the electoral registration rate there went down to about 84 or 85 per cent? After a sustained campaign to reinstate people on the register it is now 92 per cent. If that were translated to the mainland, we would have to accept a loss of 3.5 million to 4 million registered voters.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman must decide whether people would not remain on the register if they were invited to provide their national insurance number. That is profoundly unlikely. I agree entirely that there are serious problems in this country concerning people who are not on the register but should be. If their national insurance number were an additional requirement, I do not think that that would put them off. There are far more fundamental problems that we must address, but the national insurance number is not one of them.
	Finally, I want to touch on one other pointpilot schemes, rather than a national roll-out scheme. I put this as charitably as I can: we all know that Government timetables tend to slip from what they hope to achieve. It is highly likely that if the Government were to roll out a pilot scheme, followed potentially by a national roll-out, that would not occur before the next general election. I come back to the point with which I began. The House has an obligation to all those who require the register to have integrity to give them confidence to use the electoral system. We owe it to them to provide for improvements to the system to be made soon.

Geraldine Smith: Surely the problem is not the integrity of the register. In all my years in politics, I have not found evidence of widespread fraud and large numbers of people on the register who should not be on it. What I have found is many people who wanted to vote but who could not do so because they were not on the register. Surely we must address that issue first, and give local authorities more resources to get people on the register and to carry out the checks to make sure they should be there.

Jeremy Wright: I agree with the hon. Lady that that is a problem, as I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, but two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that there are insufficient numbers of people on the register is one problem. There is a problemthis is where I disagree with herof people on the register who should not be there, and there is certainly a problem of perception among those who are properly on the register

Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Wright: No, I will not give way again. I am about to conclude.
	There is a problem that people who perceive a great deal of fraud in the voting systemI am thinking particularly of those who use the postal voting systemare discouraged from voting because they do not feel that the system has integrity. The House has a responsibility to deal with that.
	On national roll-outs and pilot programmes, that is a national problem and requires a national solution. It is also an urgent problem and requires an urgent solution. The solutions proposed by the Government in the Bill unamended do neither of those things.

Harriet Harman: Much of the ground covered today was covered on Second Reading and in Committee. There was one offer, which came from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), to use his experience of securing the banking system against fraud in the UK and Africa. I should like to take him up on that offer and use his expertise. We are concerned about fraud, as I said at the outset.
	There are three legs to the stool on which the legitimacy of our democracy dependsfirst, that everybody who is entitled to vote is registered; secondly, that everybody turns out to vote so that it is democracy in practice, not just in theory; and thirdly, that no one fiddles the vote. We are concerned about fraud and we have been taking action to tackle it. In the Bill, aside from the provision to roll out personal identifiers, there are a number of tougher measures on fraud, including criminal sanctions. We have taken primary legislative action to back up our commitment and concern to ensure that the electoral system is fraud-free.
	We are also proposing to bring before the House a number of secondary legislative measures which will help to tighten up the system against fraud, particularly in respect of postal voting. I have an opportunity to discuss that with Richard Mawrey QC, who conducted the Birmingham investigation. The House will hear further about secondary legislative measures to tighten up postal voting.
	As I mentioned, we are taking operational action at national level, which includes my meeting the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. After the Bill has gone through, the Electoral Commission will be able to set performance standards on tackling fraud for local electoral registration officers, so that for the first time there will be national standards for fraud prevention with which local electoral registration officers will be required to comply. Those will be backed up by extra funding that will come with the Bill to local electoral registration officers.
	In addition to national measures, we know that fraud is a problem in particular local areas. Some areas feel much more threatened by electoral fraud than others, and we will therefore provide active support at a local level to those who feel under pressure. I ask the House to reject the amendments that would provide a national roll-out for personal identifiers. The Bill states that personal identifiers will be piloted before they are rolled out nationally, and those pilots will show whether personal identifiers assist with security without undermining the completeness of the register.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15
	  
	Reporting Donations to Members of the House of Commons

'(1)   Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) to the 2000 Act is amended as follows.
	(2)   In paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (7) insert
	(8)   This paragraph does not apply to a donation received by a member of the House of Commons.
	(9)   For the purposes of sub-paragraph (8), it is immaterial whether the donation is made to the member of the House of Commons in that capacity or in his capacity as a member of a registered party.
	(3)   In Part 5 of the Schedule, after paragraph 15 insert
	Donations to members of the House of Commons
	15A   (1)   This paragraph applies in relation to donations received by a member of the House of Commons if
	(a)   the House of Commons has in place arrangements requiring the member to report such donations, and (b)   the Commission think that the arrangements correspond to the requirements of paragraph 10.
	(2)   The Commission must make such arrangements as they think appropriate corresponding to section 69 as modified in pursuance of paragraph 15(3) to maintain a register of such information as they receive relating to such donations.
	(4)   The Secretary of State must not make an order under section 69 for the purposes of this section as it applies to members of the House of Commons unless he is informed by the Commission that they are satisfied that they will receive the information mentioned in paragraph 15A(2) of that Schedule (as inserted by subsection (3) above) in relation to such members.'. [David Cairns.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Cairns: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 29, page 33, line 36, leave out
	'of four months ending with'
	and insert
	'from Notice of Election until'.
	No. 22, in page 33, line 40, leave out
	'of four months ending with'
	and insert
	'from Notice of Election until'.
	No. 23, in page 34, line 1, leave out
	'starting with the day when the vacancy occurs and ending with'
	and insert
	'from Notice of Election until'.
	No. 20, in page 34, line 17, leave out subsection (6).
	No. 3, in clause 30, page 34, line 33, at end insert
	'(3B)   For the purposes of subsection (3A), any expenses incurred by a registered political party in respect of communicating with an individual elector in that election, at the address at which he is registered, shall be treated as an election expense if that communication makes reference to
	(a)   the constituency in which the elector is registered, or
	(b)   any place or person within that constituency, or
	(c)   any candidate in that election, irrespective of whether that communication makes reference to the candidate of that party by name..'.
	Government amendment No. 63.

David Cairns: In discussing the new clause, I shall take the opportunity to indicate the Government's attitude to the other amendments in the group.
	Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out the requirement that holders of elective office should report donations that they receive to the Electoral Commission, which then publishes them. Hon. Members must currently report donations to not only our own Register of Members' Interests, but the Electoral Commission, and many hon. Members take the view that such duplication is unnecessary. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made that point on Second Reading.
	On Second Reading, I said that we would consider the matter carefully and introduce our proposals. The Standards and Privileges Committee, of which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is the Chair, published a report today expressing its support for new clause 15:
	We commend its proposals to the House
	the Government's proposals
	as an effective means of removing the existing duplication of reporting requirements faced by Members.
	The new clause is relatively simple. It means that hon. Members will not have to report donations to the Electoral Commission, whether those donations were received in their role as an MP or in their role as a member of a registered political party. For technical reasons, the new clause retains the requirement for the Electoral Commission to record details of such donations on its register. The commission will also continue to monitor compliance with the regulatory system, as set out in the 2000 Act. However, it will have no role to play on the non-reporting of donations, and the Register of Members' Interests will retain its functions on that issue. The provision will commence only when the Electoral Commission is content that the House authorities have sufficient arrangements in place to ensure that the commission can still maintain an accurate register, but we do not think that that will be a problem.
	We are working on a solution that would remove the requirement for all holders of elected office, which includes MEPs, Members of the devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the UK, to report donations to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission and the relevant bodies, including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England, support the proposals, but some technical issues remain to be resolved, and we will continue to explore them with the intention of tabling an amendment, which will be introduced later in the Bill's parliamentary passage, covering all holders of relevant elective office.
	Amendment No. 21 deals with what has become known as the four-month issue or the relevant period issue. Although the provision concerns only third-party spending, there has been a great deal of discussion about the efficacy of the relevant period concept. I should like to take a moment to explain to the rest of the House the point that we have reached.
	All members of the Committee, without exception, accepted that there is a problem in our system. We accept the principle of expenditure limits for national parties; that has been set, agreed to, and adhered to. We also accept the principle of expenditure limits in individual constituencies during general elections. That is a well understood and well adhered to policy. However, a relatively recent and growing phenomenon is that of the third category, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister described it in Committee, of unlimited, uncapped local spending in specific constituencies in the run-up periodthe proximity periodto a general election. If we accept, as I think we all do, that there is a role for money to play in elections, but that it has to be regulated and limited, now is the opportunity to address the lacuna whereby unlimited spending can be undertaken in individual constituencies, often to the tune of many tens of thousands of pounds.
	The Electoral Commission made a proposal, which we incorporated into the Bill and discussed on Second Reading, to introduce a four-month election campaign period, to be dated backwards from polling day, which would in effect spread the spending that takes place during an election across four months. That was an attempt to deal with the third category of spend. That proposal was not without its flaws, which were debated in depth, so I will not rehearse them. One problem is that we would not know when we were in the four-month period, because we cannot know that an election is going to take place until Parliament is dissolved, the Prime Minister goes to the palace and the election kicks off.
	Another proposal was to revert to the status quo ante and not have MPs becoming candidates on the dissolution of Parliament, but it was felt that that would resurrect the prospective parliamentary candidate system, which also had its flawsthat was why we moved away from that in the first place.
	Another major consideration in Committee was that because the spending limit for the four-week campaignfor want of a better phrase, the short campaignis relatively low, perhaps on average about 10,000, although it obviously varies according to the size of constituency, if it was spread not over four weeks but four months, that would seriously limit the amount of legitimate campaigning that could go on in the run-up period to a general election. We have absolutely no wish to do that. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggestedI do not think that it was his preferred option, but an attempt to explore some of the problems involvedthat we should simply double the limit for the election campaign spend. However, that would create other problems. If the limit was put up to 20,000 or 25,000, there would be nothing to stop someone not spending anything in the run-up period but spending it all during the election campaign, which would have a distorting effect.
	I hope that I have made it clear that there is no obvious solution to the problem that does not result in other problems. We therefore undertook in Committee to attempt to explore the issue further, in consultation with Front-Bench spokesmen, and to give an outline of how we will proceed.
	Another point that was clearly expressed in Committee was that during the run-up period, or proximity periodthe three months before the dissolution of Parliamentwe will all continue to be MPs and to do our duties as MPs, including communicating with the electorate. Members expressed the fear that if we did that inadvertently during the time that was retrospectively to be part of the election campaign, we would get into trouble. That is a legitimate fear. We have to make it absolutely clear that expenditure by MPs discharging their duty to communicate with their constituents will not, wherever it has been sanctioned by the incidental expenses provision, in any way be counted against election spending after the event. We must be clear about that. Further consultation with the House authorities and the Electoral Commission is required to ensure that such a provision is robust and that Members of Parliament who go about their business will not be caught out by claims that something or other constituted election expenditure.
	Of course, the rule for indicated expenditure provision is that it must not be used for campaigning or party political purposes, irrespective of whether we are in the run-up to a general election. If we maintain the integrity of the IEP rules, that fear can be set aside.
	We seek consensus on the issue. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was probably right to say that all the controversy was likely to be about the first group of amendments. That is not to say that there will be harmony on everything else but we all accept that a problem exists and we are trying to find a solution together.
	We want a workable solution that tackles the problem and maintains and strengthens the transparent and accountable regulatory system. To that end, we have been consulting the Opposition parties and the Electoral Commission, and have devised what may beI believe that it will bea workable alternative. We propose to maintain the concept of a run-up period to the election campaign but to protect the election campaign as it currently stands. In other words, the campaign will kick off at Dissolution and a Member of Parliament will continue to be entitled to spend everything that one is now allowed to spend during the four-week campaign. That money is ring-fenced.
	However, we propose to introduce the concept of a run-up period of three months, during which there will be a separate cap on what can be spent locally in a constituency. That period would have an expenditure limit. The definition of election expenditure would take account of the fact that Members of Parliament continue to carry out their parliamentary duties and constituency activities. During the run-up period, election expenses would cover only campaigning costs.
	The proposal would create a rolling three-month period with a discrete limit. That will provide greater clarity by setting the rules for what can be spent on campaigning activities in the run-up to the dissolution of Parliament. It would avoid a situation whereby candidates accidentally exceeded the election expenses limit simply because they did not know that they were in the election period. The three-month proximity or run-up period and the current period would apply to all candidates thereby maintaining a level playing field.
	The proposal does not resolve all the problems about the concept of a run-up period. Legitimate anxieties remain about the role of election agents and their legal responsibilities. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will want to discuss those further. Problems remain such as precisely what spending should be included in the two different periods. Amendment No. 3 focuses on that. Whatever happens, the election expenses limit will almost certainly need to be increased. Problems remain about communicating with an individual elector and the correct category into which such communication falls.
	We therefore propose to table an amendment at a later stage to take a power under the Bill to introduce a scheme through secondary legislation, which will follow full and wide-ranging consultation with all interested parties. We will learn from political parties' expenditure, party lists in Wales and Scotland and the Electoral Commission's current work on expenditure at the previous general election. I want to give a clear assurance that hon. Members will have the opportunity to have their say during any proposed consultation and before any scheme is submitted to Parliament.

John Redwood: Does the Minister's outline proposal mean that only the last three months before an election would be subject to the controls? When he says that it would apply to the rolling three-month period, would that involve only those candidates who had not been a good judge of when the election was going to be? They could have spent a lot more between six and three months before the election, if they had been right in their judgment as to when the election was to be held. Is that correct?

David Cairns: That is essentially correct. The judgment has been made, however, that money spent closer to an election is more efficacious than money spent earlier. One of the proposals was simply to replicate the national system of having a 12-month period in which a rolling cap applied to every month, irrespective of the time of year. I was not attracted to that, however, because it is all very well for political parties to manage such a system given that they have well-paid professional people with great experience of these matters, whose job is to do just that, but it is a different matter for those of us who have voluntary agents, on whom we do not want to place too heavy a burden. We also do not want to create a perverse incentive for parties not to appoint agents until Dissolution, in order to avoid accusations of unauthorised spending. There is a balance to be struck. Before we get into too much detail, however, a lot more consultation and discussion needs to take place.

Rosemary McKenna: I am happy to hear that from my hon. Friend, because there is clear evidence in at least two constituencies in Scotland of the aspiring MP spending hundreds of thousands of poundsnot just tens of thousandsover a period of two to three years. That is a blatant misuse of funds, because it covers not only the election period and the preceding six months, but the two or three years leading up to that.

David Cairns: I accept my hon. Friend's valid and legitimate concern. We are trying to address the most serious aspect of this fairly recent phenomenon without making the system too bureaucratic or placing too many burdens on voluntary agents. We are trying to strike a balance. Spending during the proximity period is more efficacious than at other timesthat is why people do it, of courseand we probably need to be most concerned about that period at this stage.

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are grateful to him for looking again at this issue. His proposal certainly has a basis for agreement. We agree, however, that the reporting process still presents some difficulties. In principle, if we could avoid the reporting, the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) should apply. That is that in any three-month period there should be a cap on expenditure, provided that our agents did not have to report on every three-month period, because that would be too onerous a task. We might look again at that, but I agree with the Minister that the three months before a general election are the crucial period.

David Cairns: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is relatively easy for us to pass these regulations in response to legitimate concerns, but out there in the real world, they have an impact. I suspect that if the 650 agents out there knew what we were cooking up, they would be marching on Parliament to say, What on earth are you up to? You're making things even more burdensome for us. We are aware of that possibility. On reporting, in regard to submitting electoral expenses, there is no doubt that the three-month/one-month period effectively creates an additional bureaucratic hurdle. As well as merely accounting for the election expenditure, the agent will have to account for the three months prior to that period. I hope that we can keep this as simple as possibleperhaps by using just one form, for example, so that the account is simply a continuation of that of the previous period. In reality, I would imagine that this will not be that much of an issue in the vast majority of constituencies, because there will not be a huge amount being spent in any given three months.

Oliver Heald: Obviously, this would not apply to any of the main parties, but one could imagine a situation in which an agent had come in to act on a voluntary basis for a candidate for a badly organised party during an election. He might not know anything about the candidate's spending history. How will the provision be policed, given that it is retrospective?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted one of the key issues that remain to be resolved. Whether we talk of unintended consequences or of moral hazards, if we write into statute that the agent, once appointed, cannot be held responsible in any way for what was spent in the past, we shall merely create an incentive for no one to appoint an agent until Parliament is prorogued or dissolved before an election. That would lead to anarchy. Everyone would be spending everything and appointing agents the day before the Prime Minister went to the palace, and no one would be accountable for anything.
	We are trying to strike a balance. I have been frank about the fact that we have not resolved all the issues, which is why it would be unwise at this stage to write anything too prescriptive into the Bill. The amendment that we propose to table in another place will be an enabling amendment, allowing us to present subsequent orders through the affirmative procedure. It will give us time to study the Electoral Commission's proposals, examine what happens elsewhere, continue the discussion among ourselves, and return to our constituencies and prepare for the arrangements by consulting our own agents. I have a particularly excellent agent, who I am sure will cope with it all admirably. None the less, we should be aware that we are creating burdens.
	Amendment No 20 deals specifically with unauthorised third-party election expenses. Following the case of Bowman v. UK, the Government amended section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by means of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to increase the expenditure limit for unauthorised third parties. However, the relevant section remains ambiguous in relation to precisely what the money can be spent on. Clause 29 clears that up. Expenditure by unauthorised third parties up to the specified level, 500, will be allowed on holding public meetings or organising any public display, on issuing advertisements, circulars or publications, and on other ways of presenting a candidate's views to the electorate.
	The purpose of clause 29(6), which amendment No. 20 would delete, is to enable the clarification provided by clause 29 to apply, to minimise the dangers of erroneous prosecution of a third party who has misunderstood the ambiguous legislation and may therefore have contravened it while acting in good faith. Anyone who has been prosecutedwhich has already happened in one casewill now be able to cite subsection (6) in his or her defence, or in the event of a repeal.
	We have taken powers in the Bill to ensure that when there is a list election under one of the various proportional representation systems, the names of all the candidates will not have to appear at the bottom of the documents, on which the imprint is quite large. SomeoneI think it was a Conservative Back Bencherasked about county council and other elections. [Interruption.] In fact, it was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I apologise for calling him a Conservative. [Interruption.] Apparently the hon. Gentleman will see me outside. I spent the new year in his constituency, and this is how he repays me!
	A sensible point was made. In next year's London election, one party will put up 60 candidates. Will the names of all 60 have to be listed at the bottom of the leaflets? They would take up half the space, which would obviously be silly. Our amendment No. 63 extends the provisions already applying to other types of election to cover the eventuality described by the hon. Gentleman.

Oliver Heald: I welcome amendment No. 63, because it makes a good deal of sense. It would allow the party name to be used if there were more than one candidate. I am glad that the Minister listened to what was said in Committee. We also welcome new clause 15, which will make life simpler and less confusing for all concerned without reducing sensible control over the transparency and accountability of Members of Parliament.
	As I said on Second Reading, I share the concern that has been expressed about the more general issue of holders of elective office being required to report donations to the commission and to the body to which they are elected. I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that this issue is being looked at. We should also pay tribute to the commission, which was prepared to suggest sensible proposals and to support them.
	I thank the Minister for the welcome consultation that has taken place on the more difficult issue of a proposed regulated period for election expenses. As we pointed out, if the date of an election is unknown, a regulated period with an expenditure cap can create real problems. If the election date proves to be a surprise or if the election is delayedas happened following the foot and mouth crisisthe money might be spent before the campaign starts; as a result, it would be impossible to compete effectively in the campaign. So it is good that the Minister has examined this issue and concluded that the election period itself should be ring-fenced, and that the expenses for the period in question should be dealt with according to current practice.
	On the proposed taking into account of an earlier period, the Minister is right to say that the power to create such a provision through regulation should be discrete and subject to full consultation. There are some problems with this proposal. If volunteer agentswho may have been appointed as recently as the Dissolution of Parliament, or when an election campaign startsare to be told, You will be responsible for what happened in the previous three months, they might prove quite difficult to recruit. Alternatively, we might end up with prospective parliamentary agents, just as we used to have prospective parliamentary candidates. So we need to look at this issue, although I accept the more general point that problems can arise if there is very heavy expenditure just before the election period starts.

John Redwood: Of course, we used to run our Conservative associationsI guess that the same is true of Labour associationsproperly until the election was called, and then close them down for the election period, so that they could not spend anything that could conceivably be construed as promoting the candidate. We cannot close our associations down for three months beforehand in the belief that there might be an election, so surely a limit must be set that allows an associationbe it Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democratto spend its money promoting itself and its message in the normal way, and to promote any local government candidates who may be needed for by-elections or local government elections. Otherwise, associations could apparently overspend, even though the money was spent on more general purposes.

Oliver Heald: That is one of the key issues. Of course, it is not necessarily associations that would have spent such money. If a council promoted a particular issue and the councillor taking the lead on it proved later to be the parliamentary candidate, that could give rise to all manner of questions relating to council expenditure. We should also bear in mind the incidental expenditure provision. The Minister is right to say that if money is spent properly and in accordance with House rules, it should not be treated as a pre-election expense. However, it is necessary to examine in detail the commission's view of such matters, which it has a duty to define.
	So we need to consult fully on these many complex details if we are to avoid ending up with a provision that is very hard to implement. My initial view was that although there is a problem, in solving it we might create a worse one. I therefore welcome the Minister's commitment to full consultation and to a separate order-making power, which could be implemented at a much later date, once all these issues have been looked into. The Electoral Commission is also concerned about the matter, and it will be worth looking at the study that it is undertaking.
	Progress is being made, so I do not want to press amendments Nos. 21 to 23. The Government have listened to the very important points made in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).

David Heath: I agree that several bouquets should be handed to Ministers in respect of this group of amendments and I am grateful for their engagement with the arguments advanced on Second Reading and in Committee. I am pleased that the potential nonsense posed by the imprints has been resolved and welcome new clause 15 in particular. The Minister was right to say that I called for that change on Second Reading, when I made it clear that a duplication existed in the two sets of rules. That was unhelpful in many ways, as the lack of distinction between those rules was causing problems. I shall not steal the thunder of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), because he is Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and I served under him in the previous Parliament, so I know how concerned that Committee was about the matter. I am grateful to Ministers for the resolution that has been achieved.
	Amendment No. 3, in my name, is a serious proposal, as it deals with a practice that is becoming widespread in all parties around the country that effectively circumvents the rules on local election expenditure. Literature generated from national parties' central headquarters is sent to individual electors in a way that can be construed only as an attempt to influence a specific election. However, because that literature does not mention the local candidate and is instead signed by the leader of the national party, or someone else, it does not have to be counted against local expenditure limits.
	All hon. Members will have seen that happen. The practice is especially prevalent in hotly contested marginal constituencies, but probably unknown in others. All three major parties are guilty of what I consider an abuse: a piece of material put though people's doors that is intended to promote the interests of one party and its candidate in an election, or which is intended to reduce the likely success of another candidate in that election by drawing attention to real or imagined shortcomings in that candidate's performance or policies is election material and should be identified as such.
	I would have preferred the Bill to be explicit about that, but I recognise that the Government and the Electoral Commission are genuinely working to identify what should be considered as local election material. I am content to allow that work to go on, but I will not be content if large sums continue to be spent in individual constituencies without being caught by the expenditure limits.

Andrew Turner: At the last election, I was privileged to receive a letter from the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), inviting me to support that party. The hon. Gentleman will know the effect that that had in my constituency. When he says that such a letter must be identified as election material, does he mean that it should be attributable to the relevant party's local candidate, or that it should be a cost charged to that party's national expenditure allowance?

David Heath: I am very clear. The spending should be counted against the election limits for the specific candidate. I am working on the assumption that central party organisations do not send out vast quantities of material without the local candidate's at least acquiescing, if not with his or her prior knowledge. I accept that that assumption is questionable, but nevertheless we can deal effectively with the mischief only by having proper control. The practice has been growing among all parties. Certainly, a significant number of letters were addressed to individuals in my constituency from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and I know that people had letters from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy). Let us not be silly about this: we all know it is being done by the national parties in a competitive environment and I think it is an abuse and that we need to deal with it.

John Pugh: Surely the case is overwhelming when the letter contains data that are entirely specific to a particular constituency?

David Heath: I agree, but there is a much easier test. It would be a mistake to get into the situation in which each item of mail has to be scrutinised to see what relevance it has to the local constituency. The only sensible way that I can identify to deal with the abuse is to say in terms that a communication to a specific elector in a specific constituency that has a political content either in supporting a party contesting the election or in opposing one is election material. Most normal people would recognise it as such, and I should like the law to recognise it as well.
	I am grateful to the Minister for listening to what was said in all parts of the Committee about the four-month issue. Let us be clear about our common ground: we all accept that there is a potential abuse, which needs to be dealt with, through substantial expenditure prior to an election being called that is not caught by the present limits. I was concerned on a number of grounds by the original proposal put to the Committee. Clearly, it distorted current election limits, which were intended to apply during an election period, but which were to be extended over four months. I was concerned because of the difficulties of identifying such expenditure in the context of an election for which there is no fixed term, and therefore no fixed date. I was particularly concerned by the position in which honorary, non-professional agents would be put. They would have to account for expenditure over which they had no direct control and which, indeed, might have happened before their appointment. As a matter of natural justice, people should not be legally responsible for something over which they had, and could have, no control.
	The Minister has made a suggestion to me and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), which we readily accept is a starting point for discussion, of separating out the three-month period before the election from the usual one-month campaign period. That makes sense because it preserves the present system for the campaign period, but the great unanswerable question in my mind is how we deal with the reporting issue for a period that is not defined and in which no one is actually controlling the expenditure, but someone nevertheless has to produce under pain of law an accurate account of the money expended.
	We can explore this matter further and I do not want to detain the House today in exploring all the possibilities. I took seriously the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the rolling three months and the differentiation between that and the period immediately prior to an election. Things could operate on two levels. It could operate as a general prohibition of political expenditure in support of a particular party or candidate over any three-month period, which would enable someone to challenge the expenditure of large amounts of money in a constituency over that time. That would be more difficult without a reporting procedure, but it might provide some check on unnecessary or inappropriate expenditure.
	We could also have a proper reporting procedure over the three-month period preceding the election, but we would need some way of protecting the agent from responsibility for matters over which he or she has no control. Part of the answer might be the responsibilities of the political associations in each constituency through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 procedure. I receive regular complaints from the honorary treasurer of my constituency association about the onerous duties now placed on treasurers. They now have a very difficult task in reporting terms and the good ones take very seriously how they account for expenditure by their constituency association. Given that returns already have to be made by law, that could provide part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer because of the issue of third-party expenditure.
	I look forward to further discussions on this matter. It is right that we do not proceed further with debate on these matters today, but listen to what the Government have to say, contribute to their future considerations and ask those outside the House who are expert on the issue for their views on what is practicable and how we may address the problems. We have made substantial progress on several issues in this group of amendments and I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance.

George Young: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he did not want to steal my thunder, but the appropriate meteorological definition for what I want to say is more a ray of sunshine than anything to do with thunder. I wish to speak briefly in favour of new clause 15.
	In opening the debate on the previous group, the Minister said that many of the amendments and new clauses were not hers, and new clause 15 is one of them. Its parentage is the Electoral Commission and the Standards and Privileges Committee, and I hope that that is a good pedigree. We all favour deregulation and spend much time trying to deregulate business and individuals. The new clause gives us the opportunity to deregulate ourselves. I am sure that I am not alone in noticing that MPs have to fill in more and more forms as we go about our daily lives. New clause 15 would enable us to minimise, to a small extent, their number.
	As the Minister and the two previous contributors have said, we have to report certain financial donations to two institutionsthe Register of Members' Interests and the Electoral Commission. That requirement can lead to confusion. New clause 15 paves the way for a uniform system of registration by MPs. To that extent, it is deregulatory and I welcome it.
	I am also grateful to the Government for responding so swiftly to the report that was published this morning, which led to new clause 15. It paves the way for repealing the duplicatory registration requirements and, if it is approved, the Committee will carry out a general review of the House's rules on registering and declaring interests and report back. We have to adjust our rules to accommodate the current requirements of the Electoral Commission. The new clause is good news for the House and for the Select Committee system, because the Government have taken on board one of its recommendations. I hope that it will begin to make life a little simpler for Members of Parliament.

John Horam: My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the new clause was a ray of sunshine. I particularly welcome it, as I was the Member on whose conduct his Committee reported and whose inadvertent straying threw light on the possible duplication and confusion that Members were wont to experience.
	Before the last general election, my constituency association received a donation that was duly reported to the Electoral Commission, but which I failed to report to the registrar of Members' interests. Subsequently, I found that Members on both sides of the House had been in the same confusion and ignorance as me; namely, that they had to make that double declaration. The registrar kindly offered to deal with the matter through a simple exchange of letters, as it was a minor infringement, but with my undying commitment to the interests of the House and all its Members, I declined and instead insisted that my right hon. Friend and his Committee look into the matter. It seemed to me that Members were ignorant about their obligations and, as my right hon. Friend said, there was considerable duplication. I am delighted that the Committee and, I think, the registrar agreed and, as a result, the Government have introduced the new clause.
	Never has something that I advocated been responded to so rapidly by the Government of the dayand even by one whom I oppose. I wish that I could pull off the same trick in more important areas, but I am delighted that the Government have responded so quickly to the report of my right hon. Friend's Committee and to my views. I thoroughly commend the new clause to the House.

John Redwood: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), whose recommendation I have pleasure in supporting, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) who helped to instigate it. It is a modest deregulation that will in no way affect the honesty of reporting and will help all involved.
	In an intervention, I raised one of the problems that I saw with putting a three-month control on expenditure before an election was called; namely, that there could be a local government by-election in the area. Would that mean that the MP or the leading challenging candidate in the subsequent general election would have to rule themselves out of active campaigning in the by-election, as otherwise all the expenses involved could be deemed part of the controlled expenditure?
	I speak as someone who, perhaps contrary to my views on free enterprise and economics, believes in regulation and control of the amount that candidates can spend in a general election. That we have extremely modest expenditure limits on individual races in individual constituencies is welcome. It means two things. First, it is easier for the challengers and, in a democracy, there should be choice and a proper challenge and, secondly, a Member of Parliament does not have to spend many months, or the whole of their time in Parliament, worrying about raising money, as, for example, members of Congress do. That unwelcome feature of an otherwise rather good American democratic system is one that I am pleased that we do not have in our country. I speak as someone who is philosophically in favour of tight expenditure controls.
	I also favour controls even tighter than those we have at present on the sums that parties can spend on the national race in a general election. Most of the money spent by national parties in a general election is wasted. The only problem is that they do not find that out until after the event. Looking at the voting figures for all three main parties in the last general election, it is clear that practically all the money was tipped down the drain because the number of people abstaining greatly exceeded the number voting for even the most popular partyin England, the Conservatives and in the United Kingdom as a whole, Labourlet alone any other conclusion one might draw from those numbers.
	Difficult cases could arise if we tried to extend the controls to the three-month period before an election was called. Let us suppose that quite close to the general election in this Parliament the Labour party needs a leadership contest, which is not that ridiculous a supposition. From time to time, the Prime Minister has said that he would like to serve all or most of this Parliament before bowing out, so there could be such a contest. We have been told that there is much talent and several people might like to be Labour leader and Prime Minister for a week or two. They would obviously want to put their names forward and campaign actively to attract support from the membership of the Labour party and the trade union movement in their democratic process. Therefore, very close to an election in the three-month control period, three, four or five Labour Members could spend a lot of money on promoting themselves and their views not just to the national membership generally, but in their own constituencies. It would not be their intention that that would have a big influence on the forthcoming race in their constituencies, but a great deal of money would certainly be spent on promoting them, as individuals and candidates for Prime Minister, just before the election was called.
	Anyone looking at such expenditure would say that it clearly influences voters in those constituencies during the subsequent parliamentary challenge, although it has a different purpose. We must take into account those very hard cases when trying to craft a regulation that could stop what we want to stopa party or individual spending disproportionately huge sums of money before an election is called with a view to influencing its outcomewithout stopping all the legitimate activities that go on, such as leadership contests, local government contests and the normal promotion of active party politics in communities, all of which takes money. We need a little bit of caution, however good the intentions may be.

Brian Binley: I pay tribute to Ministers, because we had a good Committee process and they have tried hard to listen and to take account of the points made by Opposition Members, and I thank them for that. If there is one issue where we should use all the talent of the House, it is electoral administration. I am delighted that that seems to be the Minister's view, and I am particularly appreciative.
	I wish to deal with just two points, the first of which is agents. Many hon. Membersparticularly you, Mr. Deputy Speakerwill know that I was proud to be a professional agent some years ago, when professional agents were much more likely to be seen. Sadly, that has changed, and we now see many less experienced agents. When I talk about professional agents, I mean those people who were agents for 22 years, although they did not get paid for it, and by dint of experience, made themselves very professional indeed.
	We had a cadre of professional agents in that respect whom we could rely on to aid the electoral process. My experience suggests that they took their duties seriously and that they worked together to ensure that the democratic process was in the main carried out as well and honestly as possible. That is less prevalent today. Indeed, many agents are thrown into the job at the last moment, simply because no one else will accept it. Therein comes the problem, because agents are vital to the good administration of elections and, if we make it more difficult for them to do the job, we will make the good administration of elections more difficult. That point concerns me seriously and I hope that the Government will rethink that.
	The second point concerns limits, for the Bill seems schizophrenic in talking about the co-ordinated online register of electors. I welcome CORE, but it gives an opportunity for political parties to use direct mailing much more efficiently. On the one hand, CORE suggests that we ought to move to a more professional approach, yet on the other, the new clause seems to suggest that we ought to limit that ability. Frankly, that issue has not been thought through properly, so the Government should reconsider it to get a more consistent view.
	Do we want direct marketing elections, or do we not? If we want such elections, we need limits. If we do not want them, we need to be more decisive on the issue. The new clause does not answer that question and the Minister is concerned that he has not quite hit the right note. I ask the Government to reconsider that proposal and, to return to agents, they should think again, because we are all involved, and if we make such things more difficult, we make the whole electoral process more difficult.

David Cairns: We have had an interesting and well-informed debate that has perhaps been more indicative of the way in which the Bill has progressed through Parliament than that on the first group. Such was the outbreak of consensus that we drove the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) out of the Chamber, although I am sure that he will reappear when we discuss reducing the voting age.

Richard Younger-Ross: Enjoy it while you can.

David Cairns: I am enjoying it. Metaphors about banging heads against a brick wall come to mind.
	Questions were asked about new clause 15 and the reporting issues. It is true that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. At least three hon. Members claimed paternity of new clause 15, but I am happy to give credit where it is due. I said immediately before the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) entered the Chamber how indebted we were to him and his Committee for its report, so I am happy to repeat that now. I am grateful to him for casting the move as deregulatory. I had not conceived of it in those terms, but that will win us brownie points with the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who champions the deregulation agenda with great vigour.
	The discussion about the period of four months highlighted the fact that everyone accepts that there is a problem, but understands that any solution proposed would create other problems. That shows the need for us not to be too prescriptive in primary legislation, but to proceed slowly and incrementally through secondary legislation.
	A specific point was made about leadership elections. I appreciate that they are all the rage these days and am sure that we will have one in due course. There are two possible solutions to the problem that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned. We would have to consider what the money was being spent on and ensure that our definitions were sufficiently robust to withstand the case that he mentioned. I was glad that he raised the matter because I had not considered it and we will now do so.
	It is important that we get the limit right in the run-up period because it must be high enough so that the routine run-of-the-mill stuff done by us, constituency associations and constituency Labour parties is not constrained, but low enough to dissuade rich people from trying to buy seats. That is the essential dilemma that we face. It would be foolish to put such limits into primary legislation, so I commend what has been proposed to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	  
	Personal Identifiers (Absent Voters)

'(1)   In schedule 1 of the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) in rule 24, at end insert
	(2)   The prescribed form shall include provision for the form to be signed and, in the case of an elector, for stating his date of birth..
	(2)   In schedule 4 of the 2000 Act (absent voting in Great Britain), paragraph 3 is amended as follows
	(a)   after subparagraph (1)(a) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and;
	(b)   after subparagraph (2)(b) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and.
	(3)   In schedule 4 of that Act (absent voting in Great Britain), paragraph 4 is amended as follows
	(a)   after subparagraph (1)(a) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and;
	(b)   after subparagraph (2)(b) insert
	(   )   the applicant has provided personal identifiers in accordance with section 13E of the 1983 Act (personal identifiers), and.'.[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2
	  
	Registration Officers: General Duty

'After section 8 of the 1983 Act (registration officers) insert
	8A   Registration officers: general duty
	(1)   Each registration officer shall have the general duty of ensuring as far as is practicable that
	(a)   every person entitled to vote is registered;
	(b)   every person registered to vote has the opportunity to do so; and
	(c)   no person is registered who is not entitled to vote.
	(2)   Each local authority which appoints a registration officer under section 8 shall have a duty to provide the resources necessary to enable him to carry out his duties..'.[Mr. Heath.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to new clause 2, No. (a), at end of proposed new subsection (1)(c) add
	'(d)   any person registered to vote who is not entitled to vote is removed from the register as soon as reasonably practicable.'.
	New clause 5Prisoners voting
	'No person who has
	(a)   been convicted of any criminal offence, and
	(b)   is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment and is detained in full-time custody in consequence thereof,
	shall be included on the register of electors.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 47 to 51.

David Heath: I hope that we will resume the consensual approach that we enjoyed during the previous group of amendments. There is a pressing need to improve the registration process, and I know that the Minister shares that aspirationI am as alarmed as she is by the deficiencies in the current process. Earlier, she mentioned electoral registration levels in London, and she has been kind enough to send me a letter containing the details. It is a huge indictment of the system that more than 500,000 Londoners who are entitled to vote are not registered to do so, and it is simply not acceptable that that should be the case in our electoral system.
	Although London has particular issues, I am sure that that situation is replicated in many constituencies up and down the country. In constituencies such as mine, it is relatively easy to achieve high levels of registration, but communities that contain large numbers of houses in multiple occupation experience a lower level of registration. Frankly, some local authorities do not provide sufficient resources to allow registration officers actively to pursue registration and achieve the results that we would hope and expect from them.

Geraldine Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. My constituency is one of those that he has mentionedit contains a large number of houses in multiple occupation, and the local authority sometimes does not spend the necessary resources on electoral registration. When forms are just thrown into blocks of flats or houses, they do not reach the relevant people, and we must do something about that to allow people their legitimate right to vote.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is alarming that electoral registration officers often do not realise that it is not only their duty but their right to insist on the resources from their local authority to do the job properly.
	There are huge variations. Many experienced EROs have some clout within their local authority; equally, many do not. Many are relatively junior officers who find themselves at the whim of cost-cutting administrations when times are hard. Electoral registration is, unfortunately, one of the areas that bear the brunt of the reduction in resourceswrongly, because by statute EROs have a right to those resources.

Peter Bone: I have found the reverse to be true in my constituency. We have a conscientious returning officer who feels that his problem is that he does not have enough powers to pursue voter registration.

David Heath: There are instances of that kind. The Bill makes up some of the deficit in that respect, and I commend the Government for that.
	We expect three things: as full a registration process as possible; opportunities for people who are on the register to be able to cast their vote effectively; and accurate registers to ensure that those who are not entitled to vote do not appear on the register in the first instance or at a later stage when they come to cast their vote. One of the points that recurred on Second Reading and in Committee was that we need to be absolutely clear about the duty on EROs, and on those who control their finances, to ensure that the process works effectively.
	I agree with the Minister about the three legs of the stool as regards the legitimacy of the election process. To use slightly archaic language, an old political song in the Liberal tradition from the beginning of the last century says:
	  Peace, Reform and Liberation
	  Be our triune aspiration.
	The triune aspiration for us is to ensure that registration officers have a clear duty to maximise registration, that people who are registered have the opportunity to vote, and that those who should not be registered to vote are not on the register and do not have the capacity to affect the outcome of elections.
	The difficulty is that that is nowhere to be found in the Bill. In clause 9, the Government have produced some duties to take necessary steps. There is an argument that clause 9 would become redundant were my new clause to be accepted, but I do not accept that. The new clause sets out the practical steps that we should expect registration officers to take. I want a declaratory statement of the basic duty of registration officers that they can put in front of the chief executive of their local authority and say, Lookthis is my duty, and I want to perform it on behalf of the electors in this constituency in this local authority area. Your duty, clearly stated, is to provide the resources necessary for me to carry out those functions. There is great merit in being so clear. Including the declaratory statement improves clarity for all registration officers and I hope that the Government will warm to it.
	I do not dissent from the sentiments of amendment (a) but it is otiose. It adds a fourth duty that
	any person registered to vote who is not entitled to vote is removed from the register as soon as reasonably practicable.
	I agree with that but it is encompassed by subsection (1)(c) in the new clause, which provides that
	no person is registered who is not entitled to vote.
	If one is not entitled to vote, one should either not be registered in the first instance or not be allowed to remain on the register.

Brian Binley: rose

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is not wrong. We tabled amendment (a) to clarify and improve the new clause. However, if he does not accept it, we will not push the point. I agree with him and we will continue to support the new clause.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I hope that she accepts that I agree with her sentiments. Does the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) wish to intervene?

Brian Binley: No, I am just wide eyed.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman may be wide eyed but I doubt that he is bushy tailed or innocent.
	Let me deal briefly with the other amendments in the group. I look forward with interest to Conservative Members' comments on new clause 5 about prisoners, and with even more interest to the Minister's reply. The European Court of Human Rights has made a judgment on the issue and there is a legitimate and sensible argument for prisoners' rights to vote. There is no obvious correlation between the deprivation of liberty and that of other civil rights that prisoners hold. We maintain several citizens' rights in the case of prisoners. We currently deprive them of their right to participate in the democratic process, but in many countries that does not apply. In recent years, I have been an election monitor in countries in the developing democracies of central and eastern Europe. I have visited some pretty filthy prisons there. I remember one in Tblisi where prisoners had the right to vote and were voting. It was happening under extraordinary conditions, but nevertheless they had the opportunity to exercise their franchise.
	Let us not assume that, simply because it is not the practice in this country to give prisoners the right to vote, it is necessarily wrong to do so. It is sometimes argued that it is a good thing to do in preparing for release. I look forward to the Minister's reply because that will tell us what the Government intend to do about the adverse finding, which they need to address at some stage in future, if not now.
	I have no argument with the Government's application of the safety test to others. It derives from discussion in Committee and I am grateful to them for tackling the matter.
	New clause 2 constitutes a desperately important declaratory statement, which would mean that no one had any doubt about the principal duties of registration officers and the importance that we, as a Parliament, attach to their duties in franchising the citizens of this country. Woe betide any local authority that does not provide the encouragement or the resources to enable them to do that job even more effectively than they do it now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the delay but I was deferring to the Minister in my usual deferential manner.
	I shall be brief, given that we are nearing the end of our excellent debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has made a good case for the new clause, which we support. I shall not take up the House's time in reiterating his arguments, which were well put.
	I hope that the Government, and the House, will support new clause 2, as it will add to the Bill. We also strongly support Government amendments Nos. 47 to 51 and Government amendment No. 68. The Minister has been very reasonable and courteous in the way in which she has consulted throughout the Bill and taken on some of the arguments put by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We asked for these amendments, and we are pleased that the Government have now tabled them. However, that is where the consensus ends. We shall have a rather more robust debate on new clause 5.
	We have tabled new clause 5 to clarify what might become an anomaly in our system. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has just argued against it. I shall now put the case for it. When someone is convicted of an offence that is serious enough to require a custodial sentence, part of the punishment is the loss of freedom and the loss of certain freedoms. Fortunately, the kind of prisons that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has seen in other countries do notI hopeexist here. Of course we believe in upholding the personal human rights of prisoners, but the loss of the privilege of taking part in the democratic system does not come into that category. It is part of the punishment for a serious crime. I am not talking about people who are on remand, but about people who have been convicted of a serious crime. Such people should have their freedom withdrawn and should lose their right to participate in the democratic process. That is a simple argument, and for the sake of brevity I shall not go into it in any more detail.

Diana Johnson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: I will give way to the hon. Lady, because I recall that on Second Reading she made a passionate case against this proposal, and that she is personally acquainted with the gentleman who brought the case that might give rise to the anomaly.

Diana Johnson: That is right. Mr. Hirst, who took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, is a constituent of mine. Would the hon. Lady look favourably on the idea that, when passing sentence at the end of a court case, a judge might rule that someone's right to vote should be removed? That could be an alternative to the blanket provision of removing the right to vote from all prisoners.

Eleanor Laing: I take the hon. Lady's perfectly reasonable point, but I happen to disagree with her. I would argue that the passing of a custodial sentence implies that a serious crime has been committed, and that it deserves a serious punishment involving the loss of liberty and of certain other rights, including the right to participate in the democratic system.
	I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will consider allowing a separate vote on new clause 5, because this is a serious matter that deserves proper consideration on its own by the House this evening.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has tabled new clauses dealing with increasing registration, and I strongly support his objective. However, we do not suggest that the House accept his new clauses.
	New clause 2 would insert a new section 8A in the Representation of the People Act 1983, and would add additional elements to the duty in clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 9 places a new duty on registration officers to take steps, set out under the clause, to ensure that the electoral register is accurate. Subsection (1)(a) of the new clause specifies that the electoral registration officer has a general duty to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is registered. We believe that that is unnecessary. Clause 9 is already clear about the duties of electoral registration officers in ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is registered.
	Subsection (1)(b) of the new clause specifies that the electoral registration officer has a duty to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote has the opportunity to do so. Again, we believe that that is unnecessary. The Bill includes several provisions to widen access to all electors as far as possible. Clause 19 provides for a review of polling places that must take place every four years. Clauses 36 and 37 respectively provide for translations of documents into other languages and Braille, and for assistance for certain postal voters to find information about translations.
	Subsection (1)(c) would add a new step to those specified under the new duty, stating that electoral registration officers must remove from the register those who are no longer eligible. That is already enshrined in section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and is reinforced by clause 12, which confers specific powers on electoral registration officers to remove from the register persons who are not, or are no longer, eligible.
	We made the changes in clause 12 not because they lack the general obligation, but because at present it is not apparent that electoral registration officers can quickly remove persons who are already on the register except on the occasion of the annual canvass, or when a declaration-based registration lapses. The statutory provisions entitle a person to remain registered until such events occur; clause 12 changes that. Subsection (2) of the new clause attempts to place a duty on local authorities to provide the necessary resources to enable the electoral registration officer to do his duty. Again, I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The same point has made been on many occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
	The current system of funding local authorities is designed to give them overall control of the amounts that they spend on different priorities, including elections. Different local authorities across the United Kingdom have differing needs in terms of election funding. It is difficult to establish a set definition of the resources necessary for electoral registration officers to carry out their duties. That is one of the problems that we identify in the new clause. However, we recognise that it is essential that returning officers and registration officers receive enough funding to be able to implement the measures in the Bill successfully and perform their duties effectively.
	Clause 63 provides for the Electoral Commission to collate centrally information from local authorities on their spending on elections and registration. That is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has been able to acquire information because the system is organised differently in Wales, but Members here cannot compare the amounts spent by electoral registration officers. Under the Bill, for the first time, information will be collected that will be crucial to the informing of future policy development.
	The Opposition's amendment (a) to new clause 2 adds a further subsection 8A(1)(d). It is designed to require electoral registration officers to remove ineligible persons from the registers
	as soon as reasonably practicable.
	The amendment is unnecessary, for the reasons that I gave in respect of the provision on removal.
	Clause 9, the new duty clause, and clause 12 will build on section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to ensure that registers are complete and accurate. We support the aims of the new clause, but we believe that existing provisions in the 1983 Act are sufficient. We therefore ask the House not to accept the amendment.
	I have two things to say about new clause 5. We appreciate that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has sought an opportunity to submit the issue for debate, and we welcome that. However, I respectfully suggest that she ought not to ask the House to divide on her new clause, which simply re-states current law but in perhaps less well-drafted terms. She will not want those outside this House to think that there is a policy dispute between us, simply because we fail to support her new clause. I am happy to give way if she wants to ask a question.

Eleanor Laing: The consensus that the right hon. and learned Lady reasonably seeks on this issue may not actually exist. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) disagree with me on it, so perhaps there is a policy difference. I appreciate that, in the light of recent judgments, the Government may not have had a chance to consider my new clause, and that, in strict legal terms, it perhaps does what the right hon. and learned Lady says it does. However, it might help the Government's thinking on this issue if we vote on it, so that the opinion of the House can be known.

Harriet Harman: We do not normally use consideration of Bills on Report to vote on provisions that simply repeat the current legal position. The hon. Lady's new clause would not change the current legal position, which is that no convicted prisoner can vote. There is no proposal before the House to change that position. Her new clause would simply reinforce and repeat existing law, and inviting us to vote on a draft version of one part of current law is not sensible. I appreciate the intention behind bringing such a provision before the House for debate, but voting on a new clause that would simply reinforce the current legal position and make no change whatsoever makes no sense.

Philip Davies: I am not sure that I share the right hon. and learned Lady's absolute confidence that the current law is as she describes. The point is that the law has been brought into question: it may well allow prisoners to vote, in the light of her Government's Human Rights Act 1998, so it would be very useful if the position were   clarified once and for all through a vote in this House.

Harriet Harman: The law as it affects elections in this country is laid down in electoral legislation passed by this House. Although the European Court's judgment might cause us to reflect and reconsiderwe must address that judgment, which we have yet to doit does not of itself change the law of this country. The laws of this country are made by this House. We are considering the Electoral Administration Bill, and there is nothing in it that changes the law of this country relating to the circumstances in which prisoners can vote. They can vote when on remand but not after conviction and when serving their sentence, so any vote in the House on this issue would be otiose.
	If, as a result of the European Court judgment, we were introducing a provision that changed the voting rules for prisoners, it might be sensible for the hon. Member for Epping Forest to press to a vote a provision that would keep the old law, but we do not plan to change the law on prisoners through this legislation. I welcome her bringing her concerns to the House, but it would be nonsensical to press her new clause to a vote, given that we would vote against it simply in order to keep the current law, which is that those on remand can vote, but those who are convicted cannot. I do not know whether anyone is any the wiser after that, but I hope that the hon. Lady understands what I have said.

Eleanor Laing: I do understand what the Minister has said, but still believe that there would be a benefit in the House dividing on this very important point of principle. The European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Hirst case criticised Parliament for not discussing this issue. The minority of dissenting judges noted that:
	it cannot be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification in light of modern day penal policy and of current human rights standards.
	This debate has been brief, but it is a test of the opinion of the elected representatives of the British people. I do not mind

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is still making an intervention, and that we should perhaps bring it to an end.

Harriet Harman: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I understand her better now. She is saying that the ECHR has suggested that we should consider the matter further, that the new clause has been proposed to precipitate that consideration, and that the matter will be sorted out when we vote on it.
	However, we must look carefully at what that further consideration suggested by the ECHR involves. I am almost certain that a debate on a new clause tabled on Report, important though it is, is inadequate for the purpose of satisfying the court that we have visited the matter afresh after wide consultation and proper consideration in Committee. Her intention is helpful, but the new clause will not do the trick in this regard, especially when the Bill as drafted does not contain a similar proposal. Therefore, no purpose would be served by pressing the matter to a vote.

Jim Devine: I seek clarification on this matter. Does my right hon. Friend believe that, in a Division, both sides would be voting for the status quo?

Harriet Harman: I do not think that new clause 5 exactly repeats the current law, as it does not employ the same statutory language. I would not want to replace the existing provisions with a hand-drafted proposal that is less precise.

Clive Betts: I want to help the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). Is she saying that the existing provisions might eventually have to be given further consideration in light of the ECHR judgement? Does she agree that accepting new clause 5 would mean not that the existing legislation had been given further consideration, but that an alternative form of words had been adopted in its place? Would that not mean that we might end up with two potentially conflicting formulations that could cause greater confusion in the courts in the future?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very helpful point. He has said that the consideration of new clause 5 is likely to be insufficient and defective. The debate has been useful, but it would not be appropriate to press the new clause, as it is drafted, to a vote. It would not satisfy the European Court, and it would not be acceptable to us because it does not contain the right repeals. We would therefore have duplication, with two versions of the law on the statute book at the same time, one being inferior and one the current position.
	Anyway, the hon. Lady will have to make her own decision on what to do. Let me turn to the court judgment. Under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which remains the law and is unchanged by the European Court's judgment, convicted prisoners are barred from voting while serving their sentences. In April 2001, John Hirst challenged the ban on voting by way of judicial review. He was unsuccessful in the UK courts and subsequently sought redress at the European Court of Human Rights. The court found in its initial judgment, given in March 2004, that there had been a breach of article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which provides for states to hold elections
	under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people.
	The Government challenged the judgment and requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. That heard the case afresh in April 2005, delivering its judgment in October. It found in favour of the applicant and that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners was a breach of article 3 of protocol 1 of the convention.
	We are considering how to respond to that judgment. We have brought forward no proposals, and the current law stands. The court does not make a finding as to what measures would be considered incompatible with the ECHR. The judgment simply implies that any decision must be fully debated and emerge from a discussion that considers modern-day penal policy and current human rights standards. With the best will the world, I do not think that we have had the opportunity to give the issue the consideration that it clearly deserves and which the court has clearly indicated it would like us to give it.
	The court has not said that all convicted prisoners should have the right to vote. The majority of the judgment is about process and whether or not we have given the right balance to the question of the right to vote compared to deprivation of liberty following a court judgment. We will have to revisit our consideration of the matter. The judgment raises a number of complex issues about what consideration we will need to give it if we are to bring the UK into ECHR compliance.
	I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the proposed new clause. It would be confusing for people were we to vote against something that purports to reinstate the current legal position. I hope that she will accept my reassurance that she does not need to reinstate the substantive law as I have expressed it and which she supports.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. and learned Lady is a very astute lawyer and an eloquent Minister. I appreciate that she is in an awkward position, but we shall nevertheless press the new clause to a vote. It is a chance for an expression of the opinion of the elected representatives in the House, and that can do no harm to the further consideration that may well be necessary of this extremely important matter.

Harriet Harman: Although I understand that the hon. Lady's draft is a correct repeat of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, on which I have asked for advice since she said that she intended to put the new clause to a vote, it does not include section 3A, which refers to prisoners in Broadmoor, and it does not use the correct terminology. So, frankly speaking, I do not want my colleagues and I to be in the position of looking as if we are voting against the current law, when in fact we support it. However, if she puts the new clause to the vote, we will have to vote against it, because of the drafting problems and the Broadmoor issue. That will not help people outside understand the will of the Government or the House.
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [25 October].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 5
	  
	Prisoners Voting

'No person who has
	(a)   been convicted of any criminal offence, and
	(b)   is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment and is detained in full-time custody in consequence thereof,
	shall be included on the register of electors.'.[Mrs. Laing.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 375.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	  
	CORE schemes: establishment

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.[Ms Harman.]

Clause 10
	  
	Anonymous registration

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 7, line 16, leave out from 'the' to end of line 17 and insert 'safety test is satisfied'.
	No. 49, in page 7, line 18, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 19 and insert 'safety test is satisfied'.
	No. 50, in page 7, line 27, leave out from second 'the' to 'no entry' in line 29 and insert 'safety test is satisfied'.
	No. 51, in page 7, line 42, at end insert
	'(9A)   The safety test is satisfied if the safety of the applicant for an anonymous entry or that of any other person of the same household would be at risk if the register contains the name of the applicant or his qualifying address.'[Ms Harman.]

Clause 22
	  
	Nomination procedures

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 23, line 40, leave out from 'paragraph' to end of line 3 on page 24 and insert '(3)(a)
	(a)   the words (of not more than 6 words in length) are omitted;
	(b)   after rule 6A(1) insert or (1B).'.
	No. 18, in page 24, line 33, leave out subsection (9).[Ms Harman.]

Clause 23
	  
	Description of independent candidates

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 24, line 35, leave out Clause 23.[Ms Harman.]

Clause 25
	  
	Use of candidates' common names

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 28, line 7, leave out '(against upgrading the M399)'.[Ms Harman.]

Clause 35
	  
	Replacement of counterfoils

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 46, line 34, leave out subsection (9).[Ms Harman.]

Clause 37
	  
	Assistance for certain postal voters

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 48, line 6, before 'in' insert 'at an election held'.
	No. 58, in page 48, line 8, before 'in' insert 'at an election held'.
	No. 59, in page 48, line 10, leave out
	'(whether free of charge or otherwise)'.
	No. 60, in page 48, line 19, at end insert
	'(4)   In the case of a ballot paper issued to a person resident in the United Kingdom, the returning officer must ensure that the return of the ballot paper and postal voting statement or declaration of identity is free of charge to the voter.
	(5)   In any other case, regulations may provide that the returning officer must so ensure.'[Ms Harman.]

Clause 49
	  
	Political party descriptions

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 60, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert
	'(2)   The following provisions of section 28A apply to an application under this section as they apply to an application under that section
	(a)   subsections (2) to (5);
	(b)   subsection (7), so far as it relates to subsection (2)(g).'.
	No. 62, in page 60, line 26, leave out subsection (2). [Ms Harman.]

Clause 62
	  
	Details to appear on referendum and election material

Amendment made: No. 63, in page 66, leave out from beginning of line 42 to end of line 16 on page 67 and insert
	'(2A)   For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), election material to which subsection (2B) applies
	(a)   is not to be regarded as being published on behalf of a candidate merely because it can be regarded as promoting, procuring or enhancing his electoral success or standing, but
	(b)   may be regarded as being published on behalf of the party mentioned in subsection (2B).
	(2B)   This subsection applies to election material which can be reasonably regarded as promoting, procuring or enhancing the electoral success or standing of two or more candidates standing in the name of a party or included in a list of candidates submitted by the party in connection with the election.'. [Ms Harman.]

Clause 64
	  
	Funding of services and expenses of returning officers

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 70, line 16, at end insert
	'(   )   This section ceases to have effect if, before it is brought into force, paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 21 to the 2000 Act is brought into force.'[Ms Harman.]

Clause 67
	  
	Restriction on powers of arrest by persons other than constables

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 72, line 7, after 'arrest' insert 'inside a polling station'.
	No. 66, in page 72, line 8, leave out from '(personation)' to end of line 9.[Ms Harman.]

Clause 72
	  
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 73, line 21, at end insert
	'(aa)   section (repeal of personal identifier provisions);'.[Ms Harman.]

Schedule 1
	  
	Amendments

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 77, line 10, leave out '9B(2)' and insert '9B(9A)'.
	No. 69, in page 88, line 41, leave out
	'issue of the notice of poll'
	and insert
	'publication of notice of the election'.
	No. 70, in page 95, line 32, at end insert
	'88A   (1)   Section 29 (payments by and to returning officer), as proposed to be amended by paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 21 to the 2000 Act, is amended as follows.
	(2)   For subsections (3) to (6) substitute
	(3)   A returning officer shall be entitled to recover his charges in respect of services rendered, or expenses incurred, for or in connection with a parliamentary election if
	(a)   the services were necessarily rendered, or the expenses were necessarily incurred, for the efficient and effective conduct of the election; and
	(b)   the total of his charges does not exceed the amount (the overall maximum recoverable amount) specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Commission, with the consent of the Treasury, for the purposes of this subsection.
	(4)   Regulations under subsection (3) may specify, or make provision for determining in accordance with the regulations, a maximum recoverable amount for services or expenses of any specified description and, subject to subsection (5) below, the returning officer may not recover more than that amount in respect of any such services or expenses.
	(5)   In a particular case the Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment of
	(a)   more than the overall maximum recoverable amount, or
	(b)   more than the specified maximum recoverable amount for any specified services or expenses,
	if the Commission are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (6) are met.
	(6)   The conditions referred to in subsection (5) are
	(a)   that it was reasonable for the returning officer concerned to render the services or incur the expenses, and
	(b)   that the charges in question are reasonable.'.
	No. 71, in page 98, line 37, leave out 'or 6B'.
	No. 72, in page 99, line 35, leave out paragraph 118.[Ms Harman.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Repeals

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 101, line 40, in column 2, at end insert
	
		
			  
			  'In Schedule 1, in rule 6(3)(a) the words (of not more than 6 words in length).'. 
		
	
	No. 74, in page 102, line 10, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 'Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) In Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Representation of the People Act 1983.'. 
		
	
	No. 75, in page 102, line 12, in the second column, at end insert
	
		
			  
			  'Section 25(1).'. 
		
	
	No. 76, in page 102, line 36, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 'This Act Sections 13 to (Repeal of personal identifier provisions).'. 
		
	
	No. 77, in page 102, line 36, at end insert
	
		
			  
			 'This Act Section 64.'[Ms Harman.] 
		
	
	Order for Third Reading read.

Harriet Harman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill is an important step in the very big task of restoring health and legitimacy to our democracy. Our democracy is not working properly unless everyone eligible is registered to vote, everyone participates in elections and no one fiddles the vote. The Bill takes forward measures on all of those three legs of the stool on which democracy depends.
	I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), for his excellent work on the Bill. I said at the outset that we would listen and respond to points made on the Bill from all parts of the House. Our approach has been non-party political and non-partisan. In that spirit, I particularly thank the Oppositionthe hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)for their helpful suggestions, many of which have found their way into the Bill.
	I acknowledge and thank our Whip on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton).I acknowledge the work of Select Committees, above all the Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, all of which have had a substantive input into the Bill.
	I thank Back Benchers from all sides, particularly those who served on the Committee. We were helped by the assistance of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), because much of the discussion that we have had in the House and in Committee was informed by the fact that he has asked a great many parliamentary questions, elicited answers and done a great deal of research. I also thank hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, but who none the less played a large part in producing the substance of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) for introducing what I call the Cormack amendments. I also thank hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who highlighted the issues of service voters and their under-registration. I look forward to further debate on that in another place.
	Much of the Bill has been agreed, and much of it has been changed, often at the suggestion of Back Benchers or Opposition Members. One thing that has not changed, however, is the position of prisoners, who are not entitled to vote if they have been convicted.
	Although we agree with the official Opposition about convicted prisoners, we do not agree with them about the roll-out of personal identifiers as a condition of registration, which they think should happen immediately. The Government have decided that that must be piloted before a national roll-out, so we agree on the principles, but disagree on implementation. Our approach has remained non-partisan, consultative and evidence-based, which is why we have stuck with the pilots and will insist on them before any roll-out.
	After Third Reading, we will send the Bill from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, and I look forward to hearing their lordships' views. I know that their lordships will acknowledge that the Bill is about elections and bear in mind that consideration by the elected House has been thorough and non-partisan. I am sure that my noble Friend Baroness Ashton will share the approach adopted by me and my ministerial colleagues by taking an open-minded and non-partisan approach to amendments introduced in the Lords.

Oliver Heald: I join the Minister in thanking all those involved with the Bill on both sides of the House. I particularly thank the Minister and the Under-Secretary for being constructive and prepared to consult.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who have done all the hard work. I also pay tribute to our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is sadly not here today, but who has worked hard on the Bill. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who has already been mentioned and who has happily been returned to us, and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
	The Electoral Commission has briefed us throughout the process, and I pay tribute to Sam Younger and Lisa Watch, who have provided us with excellent back-up.
	I do not agree with the Minister about prisoners. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the blanket ban is not compatible with the European convention on human rights, and one of the reasons that it gives for that opinion is that the ban has not been properly discussed in the House, so we cannot be criticised for introducing an amendment drafted in similar terms to the current law to allow that to happen. The Minister's colleagues in another place may want to consult on the matter, but we feel that we have pushed the process forward. We are sad that Ministers did not join us in the Division Lobby, because the two main parties should be united on the matterwe know that the Liberal Democrats take a different view, but the responsible parties should unite on the issue.
	As I said on Second Reading, we welcome the improvements to the Bill such as the new offence, the marked register for postal votes and anonymous registration, all of which we have discussed this evening. I am also pleased about the changes that we called for on Second Reading such as assurances about CORE, fairness on the descriptions allowed for independents and party candidates, clarifying the election expenses rules, not reducing the threshold for the loss of deposits, which would have helped extremist parties, and a firmer test regarding safety for those who are at risk when it comes to anonymous registration. The Government have examined all those matters and acted upon them, and we are grateful.
	However, we are still unhappy that the Government have been unable to help on individual voter registration, which is a vital, urgent and much-needed protection against postal vote fraud. It is sad that they are still not prepared to make the tiniest concession on that beyond the pilots, which are not an answer to the problem. It is also a pity that they are still not prepared, despite all the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, to rule out all-postal vote elections for the future.
	We would like some concrete measures on service voters. I will not speak for too long in the hope that other hon. Members will be able to say a few words about that.
	There is more to be done with the Bill in the other place. When the Northern Ireland voting system was being considered, the advocacy of my noble Friend Lord Glentoran persuaded the Government to overcome their original objections and introduce a secure system. I hope that that might happen again with this Bill.

Rosemary McKenna: I very much appreciate the opportunity to welcome the Bill despite the fact that my amendment was not selected.
	I want to put it on the record that the Minister has assured me that the circumstances that arose in my constituency at the last election will not arise again. Five hundred ballot papers were ruled out as ineligible because the polling clerk had written on the ballot paper the identifying number of the electors. That was a scandal and a disgrace. The returning officer was absolutely right that according to the law they could not be allowed. What worries me is that that is all right with an 11,000-plus majority, but it would have a significant effect in a by-election or a council election in my constituency, or anywhere.
	This particular individual in Kirkintilloch had been a presiding officer in a polling station in the past, had had extra training, as had all the others, and had been given the information from the Electoral Commission, yet he still made this mistake. The Minister has assured me that the separation of the ballot paper from the identifying marks means that it cannot possibly happen again, and I am delighted to have that reassurance. It is crucial that it does not happen againthe 500 people who voted in Oxgangs primary school had their votes taken away.
	The terms of the provision could have been reinforced a bit more, and I will be watching its operation carefully. I very much welcome all the other changes that have been made in the Bill.

David Heath: I add my thanks and congratulations to those that have already been put on the record. I welcomed enormously the approach taken in Committee by Ministers and by Conservative colleagues, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), when trying to put forward constructive proposals to make a good Bill better.

Oliver Heald: I forgot the hon. Gentleman when I was paying my tributes. I apologise, because he has played a very big part in these proceedings and should definitely have been included. Perhaps he will put in a leadership bidwho knows? [Interruption.]

David Heath: My odds are 33:1 with a leadership run, which will not happen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I will just about forgive him the fatuity of the last vote, which was an exercise in pointlessness as it asked the House to divide on two positions that amounted to the same thing.
	On the principal objectives, we have striven for consensus whenever possible, even if we have not always achieved it. That is as it should be. We have made the point over the years, including in the previous Parliament when we considered electoral reform, that such issues should not be partisan and that we should agree a common framework for our essential democratic processes. It is important that we listen to each others' points of view and accommodate them as far as possible. That has happened during the Bill's passage.
	Changes have been made through our consideration and as a result of the points that were made not only by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chairs the Standards and Privileges Committee and made the point about reporting donations to hon. Members. A minor consideration on imprints was also taken into account. There has been a retreat on descriptors, thus preventing us from holding a difficult debate on whether annibynnwr is a better description than annibynnol for independent candidates on Welsh ballot papers. A minor amendment was made when the Government finally understood my point about arrests within polling stations. I was right and the Minister eventually accepted that the original wording did not convey what the Government intended.
	Clearly, we need to make more progress on the four-month issue, which we debated. Progress has been made on deposit thresholds. The definition of election material is important and will be introduced probably through secondary legislation. The Government accepted the point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) made.
	It is a shame that we did not reach the amendments that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) tabled. He has been my colleague on many occasions on Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitoring expeditions. He well knows the requirements of international organisations that we do not yet fulfil.

Harriet Harman: We accept the spirit of the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and we will table amendments in another place that will effect his proposals on independent observers.

David Heath: Again, that is welcome. I made points in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make today in good faith to ensure that our systems were compatible with the international treaties that we had signed. The Minister therefore gives us good news.
	I also welcome the fact that we will deal with the service voter issue in another place. That is an important matter and I hope that we will not have hard travail to reach a conclusion.
	As far as possible, we have dealt with matters in this elected House rather than the other place. That is important because such decisions should be made here. Notwithstanding the wealth of experience in another place, we are responsible to our electors for ensuring that our democratic system is in place.
	There is one outstanding issue: how we maintain the integrity, especially of the postal ballot, but also of our wider electoral arrangements. I am not convinced by the Government's proposal for pilot schemes. We need personal identifiers but we must continue that argument elsewhere and it may revert to us for determination. In other respects, the Bill is a good measure, which I commend to the House.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Bill, especially the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have conducted discussions on it. They have listened not only to Opposition Members but to Labour Back Benchers. I thank them for their approach.
	Clearly, it is a national disgrace that 4 million people who are entitled to vote in this country are not even registered. It is also undemocratic and discriminatory because a disproportionate number of those who are not registered come from inner-city areas, are young, are members of black and other ethnic minority groups or live in private rented accommodation and houses in multiple in occupation. It is right that the Bill seeks to address that deficit in our democratic system.
	I particularly welcome the powers and responsibilities given to registration officers in clause 9. However, I still want further reassurance about the powers of officers to obtain information from organisations that are not within the council for which they work, especially when houses are transferred from a local authority to arm's length management organisations or housing associations. Organisations such as local colleges, the Post Office and even private sector organisations such as utility companies might have to give information to registration officers.
	The Bill represents a welcome step forward, but I believe that we shall eventually have to move to a system similar to that in Australia, in which most of the information comes to returning officers automatically from various organisations, and in which canvassers are used on a periodic basis to back that up. That would turn our system round to some extent.
	I welcome the setting of a national standard for the way in which officials operate. It is clearly right that general elections be conducted on registers that are drawn up on a similar basis in every local authority in the country. Having a national standard is important for that reason, if for no other. I also welcome the powers given to the Electoral Commission to ask for reports from various officers, to assess how different authorities are doing and to draw comparisons between them. I hope that such reports will be made annually and that we shall also encourage the scrutiny committees of local authorities to engage with their registration officers and others in considering how they compare with the work being done by their counterparts in other authorities. We must have scrutiny at local level, as well as information produced by the Electoral Commission at national level, so that Members of Parliament can ensure that our registers are much more accurate and democratic.

Patrick Cormack: We often pass imperfect legislation, but legislation is always improved by proper consultation. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, who has conducted herself in an exemplary manner in that regard. I am particularly grateful for her help, support and encouragement with the amendments that I tabled. I am also grateful for the great help that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who has led so ably from our Front Bench, and from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
	This has been a good exercise in co-operative working in Parliament and the law is being significantly improved as a result. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine), who looked after my interests in Committee. I appreciate that, because his predecessor, Robin Cook, was one of the sponsors of my private Member's Bill, which led to the amendments that I tabled.
	I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he has done valiant work on service voters, although he has yet to see a result. I hope, however, that as a result of the Bill's consideration in another place, he will.

James McGovern: I particularly welcome amendments Nos. 59 and 60. I thank the other members of the Committee. I have served on a few Committees now and have thoroughly enjoyed it.
	I particularly want to thank the Minister of State for getting back to me so quickly and efficiently on the point that I raised in Committee about possible charging for postal voting. I believe that democracy should be free and open to all, although I understand that some hon. Members have concerns about postal voting. However, if we are to have postal voting, it must be free and open to all.
	Before it was amended, the Bill would have allowed the Secretary of State to impose a charge for postal voting. While I am confident that the present Secretary of State would not have done so, I want to protect people in the future, and the amendments address that point. Should any future Secretary of State try to introduce a such charge, they would have to do so through primary legislation, and such a proposal would have to be debated and voted on by all right hon. and hon. Members. I am confident that the House would not let us down on that issue.
	I have served on several Committees since I arrived here in May and, as I said earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed it, once I managed to decipher the intricate details of the Bill in question. If my initial inquiry has led to an amendment that has strengthened the Bill, I will be delighted.

Peter Bottomley: I thank the Minister for telling us that the thrust of the new clause on election observers tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), which we did not reach today, would be dealt with in another place. I also welcome the new section 6D in clause 31, which deals with observers at polling stations and counts. I pay tribute to Tim Sheehy, whom I first met through his work on democracy in southern Africa at the Catholic Institute for International Relations. He and his colleagues, who have done similar work in central America and elsewhere, have drawn attention to the inconsistency in the fact that we expect to go to other countries and see what goes on at polling stations, while registered observers have not been able to do the same in this country. I welcome a change that I consider right, proper and balanced.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who joined the House after the general election some weeks after the rest of us. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who persisted in pursuing an issue which, if I may be slightly partisan, I will describe as a scandal. The changes in the electoral registration requirements for service voters should not have been made, and I am glad that the position is to be put right. I hope that when I visit our service personnel around the world, they will all say, I know that I am registered, and I know that I can vote.

Andrew Tyrie: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said about service voter registration. I shall make three brief points about that.
	First, having campaigned for about 18 months, I am now certain that the Minister has understood the problem and really wants to do something about it. That is a huge plus. Secondly, I have the strong impression that the whole House is convinced that we need to do something about it. All parties agree that we cannot stay where we are. Thirdly, we have not yet cracked the problem because not all parts of the Government agree on what should be done. My strong impression is that the Ministry of Defence never liked the old service voter registration scheme. It feels that it has better things to do than to act, effectively, as a returning officer. That is a perfectly reasonable attitude. The MOD would much rather try to muddle through with the existing scheme and see whether it can be made to work. I do not think that it can, and I do not think we should accept that approach.
	There are two other possible routes. One involves trying to devise a much better piece of legislation, which I do not think will be possible in the time available to the other place. If we are to try to find the best solution, that will mean putting enabling powers on the statute book that the Minister can then activate through secondary legislation. As a legislator, I do not like that approach, but I realise that it may be necessary. That was the purport of an amendment that was tabled by the Opposition, but not debated today.
	The other possible approach is one that I recommended originally and have not yet abandoned. It involves repealing the relevant clause in the old legislation and returning to the status quo ante, so that at least during the next few years and at the next general election, 250,000 service voters will be back on the register. That would give us time to work out together what is the best scheme, but the best must not become the enemy of the good. We cannot allow the scandal of service voters who work for democracy in countries such as Iraq finding themselves disfranchised at home to continue. We cannot allow it to happen at an election again. I salute the Minister for reaching that conclusion and hope that she will emphasise, with all possible vigour, the need to resolve the issue in a sensible way.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Excise

That the Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) (Hydrocarbon Oils etc.) (Amendment) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3330), dated 5th December 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.[Kevin Brennan.]
	Question agreed to.

David Willetts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise the written statement that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills made this morning concerning the case of the man on the sex offenders register who was given permission to teach physical education in a school. I know how much importance you attach to Ministers coming to this House to explain their decisions. Since that written statement was made, the Secretary of State has appeared on television answering questions from journalists about it, but we have not had the opportunity to question her about it in this House. As you know, this issue is of great concern to millions of parents. They want to know how the decision to allow someone on the sex offenders register to teach in a school could be taken, and how many other such cases there might be. Will you advise us on what procedures exist to ensure that we can question the Secretary of State in this House on this important matter of public concern?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not had the opportunity to read the written reply in detail, but I note that the Secretary of State said that she will make a further statement to the House shortly. Given that there was an interview on television, I propose to instruct my officers in Speaker's House to get in touch with the Secretary of State to find out exactly when that statement will be produced. I give no guarantees to anyone in the House, but the hon. Gentleman has the right to put an urgent question before me for consideration. I stress that it is still my right to decide whether that urgent question be granted. I have no more to say on this matter.

RIGHT-TO-BUY SCHEME

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Kevin Brennan.]

Brian Iddon: Given that 2005 was the 25th anniversary of the statutory right-to-buy scheme, which was introduced by the Housing Act 1980, it seems appropriate to assess the policy's impact on the British housing scene today. I was elected to Bolton metropolitan district council in 1977 and for 20 years I served on its housing committee, which I chaired from 1986 to 1996. For most of those 20 years, the council house waiting list remained at about 5,000 applications. When it started to rise in the late 1980s, I became concerned, but I became alarmed when it rose to about 8,500.
	The right-to-buy policy had started to impact by then. Unfit private sector houses were still being cleared, albeit on a much-reduced scale, and council house building had stopped completely. The housing committee therefore formed a partnership with five preferred housing associations. The council provided land at nil cost in order to keep rents down, and we started to build our way out of what was becoming a housing crisis. Thus was born Bolton Community Homes Ltd, which still thrives today. It compiles a joint housing register for all social housing, called Homes For You. Councillor Noel Spencer, the current chairman of Bolton At Home, which is an arm's length management organisation, told me that the Homes For You housing register has recently exceeded 20,000the highest expression of interest in social housing that Bolton has ever seen.
	Homes For You in Bolton runs a choice-based lettings system. Every week, a list of available properties is published in the property section of the Bolton Evening News. In one corner of its advertisement appear the results of expressions of interest in properties that were advertised two weeks earlier. These weekly lists provide evidence of a steadily rising demand for social housing, which was one reason for seeking this Adjournment debate. Bolton is not able to build its way out of its difficulties today because its housing capital resources have been shifted to the pathfinder authorities and to other areas of the country.
	Another reason for seeking this debate was that I and others believe that Bolton's highest-ever housing registration figure has been inflated as a result of the right-to-buy scheme. Bolton has sold 28 per cent. of its housing stock, close to the national figure of 30 per cent. Of course, it is always the better homes in the high-demand areas that are sold first. On some Bolton estates, sales stand at well over 50 per cent.
	Knowing that council house modernisation schemes affect valuation prices very little, tenants sometimes wait in the hope that a modernisation programme will improve their property before they exercise their right to buy. Investment in the decent homes policy might be accelerating sales for that reason, but there is no doubt that current prices in the private housing sector are the most significant impacting factor.
	In Bolton, house prices rose by an average of 12 per cent. in 200102, by 16 per cent. in 200203, and by a significant 32 per cent. in 200304, although the rise slowed to 10 per cent. in the first half of 200405. The National Housing Federation has reported that a person on average earnings in the north-west needed to borrow 6.1 times their annual salary in May 2005 to purchase an average home. In Bolton, the borrowing ratio was worse, at 6.3 times the average salary.
	That brings me to public sector valuations, which have always lagged behind private sector valuations for similar houses in similar areas. In Bolton, sale prices are established by private sector valuers. Completion of sales takes about 12 months, but the valuation is front-loaded, which means that the sale price can be significantly out of date at the time of completion.
	Bolton's chief housing officer reported in February 2005 that, of 26 applications referred for determination to the district valuer, 19 were reduced by an average of 6 per cent. Five valuations remained the same, while two were increased by an average of 4.4 per cent. Those two increases were the first ever valuation increases by the district valuer in Bolton since the right-to-buy policy was introduced in 1980.
	I shall give my hon. Friend the Minister some idea of how low the valuations in Bolton are. For example, Hargreaves house in the town centre was built in 1958. Recently, a two-bedroom flat there was valued at 28,000, and was sold for only 8,400. Bolton council recently completed internal refurbishment of the flat, and the discounted purchase price hardly covered the cost of that refurbishment. In addition, almost immediately before that sale the council had spent 638,000 refurbishing Hargreaves house, both externally and in the communal areas. However, the cost-floor rules do not allow such improvements to be taken into consideration in the sale of the property. In contrast, Marsden house is a recently built block of flats less than a quarter of a mile away from Hargreaves house. The selling price of a typical two-bedroom flat there is 150,000.
	To accommodate a large family, two three-bedroom semi-detached properties in Mancroft avenue, built in 1932, were recently converted into a six-bedroom house at a cost of 28,000. Yet the converted property was valued at only 57,500, and it sold at a discounted price of 27,600less than the conversion cost. Again, the cost-floor rules allowed that to happen. Will my hon. Friend the Minister therefore be prepared to look at the cost-floor rule to prevent such anomalies in the future?
	It seems to me that the guidance for valuations of tenanted public sector homes is not working to the advantage of the public purse. How is it possible to reach those valuations in any case, when there are very few comparisons with sales of tenanted properties in the private sector? Will my hon. Friend the Minister also look at the valuation guidance, in the interests of the public purse?
	According to a recent parliamentary answer by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, housing waiting figures have gone up by 50 per cent. nationally since 1997. That means that another 1.5 million are waiting for an affordable home in the public sector. The worst-hit areas, of course, are London and the south-east, where rising property prices have meant that waiting lists for council homes have risen by 77 per cent. In the case of Hertsmere council in Hertfordshire, they have risen by a massive 2,424 per cent since 1997. In the early days of the RTB scheme, we were led to believe that houses sold would be replaced, but no Government, not even a Labour one, have met the demand for social housing.
	That brings me to capital receipts. For every house sold in Bolton, 75 per cent. of the capital receipt ends up in the Treasury. I wonder how much of the pooled income from across the country is spent on providing new, affordable public sector homes. More than generous discounts, heaped on top of ridiculously low valuations, have meant that capital receipts, even had they all been spent on building new homes, have been nowhere near enough to build the replacement homes we need. In most financial years, significantly more council homes have been sold through the RTB policy than were built by local councils and housing associations put together.
	Despite the RTB scheme's obvious popularity, first realised by Margaret Thatcher, it was always destined to affect most those in the greatest housing need. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has established that more than 15 years after purchase at least half the purchasing households remain in occupation on the estates, which helps to stabilise them. However, many of the homes sold end up in the hands of private landlords who let former council houses at more than double council rents. That has put a huge strain on the housing benefit budget. Furthermore, tenants evicted by their council landlords for antisocial behaviour often end up living round the corner on the same estate, and on at least double the rent, which is often met from the public purse.
	Owner-occupation rose from 58 per cent. in 1981 to 71 per cent. in 2004, but with it comes responsibility. Unfortunately, many former council tenants, persuaded to purchase their homes by low valuations and generous discounts, by low mortgages since 1997 and by successive Governments, have not always realised the true cost of maintaining a home.
	The RTB is preserved for those tenants whose homes have been the subject of large-scale voluntary transfer. An accelerating number of sales is creating increasing financial difficulties for those housing associationsregistered social landlords, we call them todaythat have taken ownership of a considerable number of former council home properties.
	The effect of the RTB policy in rural areas has been devastating, particularly in attractive parts of the country where properties are sold off as second homes. The Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003 reduced the RTB discount in 41 local authority areas in London and south-east England that were experiencing high levels of homelessness and high property prices. The changes appear to have slowed sales. Will my hon. Friend the Minister therefore review the current position and consider extending the order to other local authorities?
	A pressurised housing status exists in Scotland, and East Renfrewshire council became the first to win it. Tenants there are prevented from exercising their right to buy until the status is lifted, which makes sense to me. Will my hon. Friend also consider providing a level playing field between the right-to-acquire policy, applicable to housing association tenants who can receive a maximum discount of only 9,000 in the north-west region, and that for council house tenants, including those managed by arm's length management organisations, whose discounts are far more generous?
	As a result of abuses to the original RTB scheme, changes have been made, too, to the qualifying period before a public sector tenant can make an RTB application, to the discount calculations and to the rules for repayment of discounts. Those exercising their RTB must now offer the property back to the council at the market price if they choose to sell it within 10 years of purchase. It will be interesting to measure the effect of those changes on RTB sales.
	At the end of September, local authorities across England became duty bound to write to all their secure tenants to explain how the purchase price of their homes is calculated, provide details of how to apply and explain the potentially high costs associated with owning a home. The home ownership section of Bolton Community Homes has included a warning in its leaflet about the private companies whose representatives still appear on doorsteps to try to persuade tenants to exercise their right to buy. Sometimes they pretend to be working with the council. They spread rumours that the right to buy is coming to an end, when it is not, and that the council is about to sell off its homes, when it is not. They also tell tenants that their rents are likely to double.

Ken Purchase: Would not the right to buy not matter so much if councils were still able and willing to build new housing to replace the stock lost?

Brian Iddon: That is certainly an underlying theme of this debate.
	Recent Shelter research, published in August last year, showed that housing affordability and a safe neighbourhood are valued considerably ahead of home ownership by British citizens. Britain's housing policies are transferring wealth upwards and widening the gap between the richest and poorest families, when what the country really needs is a redistribution of wealth downwards.
	According to research from Sheffield university, if current trends continue, in 30 years the richest 10 per cent. of children will have access to more than 100 times more housing wealth than the poorest 10 per cent. My worry is that we are creating a situation that will badly stigmatise the poorest in our society, trapping them in residual social housing with high rents. Reliance on benefits prevents those tenants from escaping that trap, even if they want to work to support their families with dignity.
	I look forward to the response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this debate on the right-to-buy scheme and I acknowledge his experience in these matters. I will try to respond to the points he has raised.
	The Government want to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to own a home, provided that they can sustain the commitments that go with it. We have acted to help first-time buyers, including people living with family, key workers, and those renting privately or from social landlords. The right to buy is a key part of our strategy.
	Our new HomeBuy scheme, due to commence in April 2006, will help some 100,000 households into home ownership by 2010, including 30,000 key workers. That will build on the success of our starter home initiative, which helped more than 10,000 key workers to find a home, and on our existing shared ownership and equity loan schemes. I should stress that, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we are committed to the principle of the right to buy. It has helped more than 1.7 million people to realise their aspirations to own their homes.
	The right to buy has been a great benefit to individuals and their families, freeing them from a dependency mindset. It has brought wider social benefits too, by helping to create sustainable mixed-tenure communities, and it has generated more than 45 billion in capital receipts, which have been used to reduce local authorities' debt burden and free some resources to be ploughed back into social housing and other public spending.
	But the right to buy has led to problems. The rules have been exploited by some tenants and by some companies. Other tenants have bought but have found the costs of home ownership burdensome. My hon. Friend refers to valuation of homes sold under the right to buy. Under section 127 of the Housing Act 1985, that is the price that the property would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor, disregarding any improvements made by the tenant. The market price depends on a number of factors, including the condition of the property, what the surrounding area is like and its location in relation to services. Improvements may add a lot of value in some areas, but much less in others.
	The Government recognise that there are concerns about right-to-buy valuations, so we commissioned research from the College of Estate Management. This was published in 2004 and is available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website. It recommended that guidance should be issued for those involved in right-to-buy valuations, so we convened a working group of practitioners led by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The working group is preparing guidance, which will be published quite soon.
	My hon. Friend referred to the cost floor, and suggested that it may not be working well. Under the cost floor, the right-to-buy discount should not reduce the price of a property below what the landlord spent on it during the previous 10 years. If my hon. Friend would like to send me more of the examples that he mentioned, our officials will look into the matter.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the use of capital receipts. As he said, local authorities pay the Government 75 per cent. of their receipts from right-to-buy sales, which are taken into account when we determine the level of investment in housing that we will support, bearing in mind local needs. So pooling is a means of redistributing resources to areas where the need is greatest.
	Like my hon. Friend, many Members will have seen the leaflets pushed through doors on council estates, claiming that the Government are about to do away with the scheme and urging tenants to buy now, with a little help from the company that has issued the leaflets. Research published in March 2003 highlighted the motives of some companies: to persuade people to agree to sell the homes they bought under right to buy to the company, at the discounted price available to tenants. So those companies are able to buy up ex-council homes cheaply and then let them out at market rents, which are unaffordable for people in the greatest housing need. I am glad to say that the Government have made such exploitation a whole lot harder. We have also tackled another abuse, which endangered regeneration schemes by forcing councils to pay compulsory purchase compensation to people who had bought their homes at discounted prices knowing full well that they were scheduled for demolition.
	My hon. Friend mentioned antisocial behaviour by tenants. We agree that eviction often simply moves the problem round the corner, so our respect action plan, published yesterday, sees eviction as a last resort. It emphasises managing antisocial behaviour through rehabilitation, family support, antisocial behaviour injunctions and of course antisocial behaviour orders. Furthermore, we have given landlords the power to suspend right-to-buy applications from tenants involved in antisocial behaviour.
	In the Housing Act 2004, we tightened up the right-to-buy rules to make the scheme fairer to both landlords and tenants who are committed to their communities. As my hon. Friend noted, we had previously lowered the maximum right-to-buy discount available to tenants in 41 areas under the greatest housing pressure, in terms of high levels of homelessness and high house prices.

John Battle: I understand the rules for Adjournment debates, so I appreciate my hon. Friend allowing me to intervene. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for securing the debate.
	In the light of my hon. Friend's comments about the gap that is emerging between people who can buy and the poorest who cannot, does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that there will be a real problem when the best family housing has been sold off? We are facing a crisis of hidden homelessness. People who have to rent can never get a job because they would come off housing benefit and would be unable to pay their rent. At the bottom end of the market, the gap is too great for people to get on the ladder to buy. We need more homes that people can afford to rent.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which was appropriately emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East.
	We have also made it easier for social landlords in rural areas to restrict the resale of ex-council homes to local people, to help them to stay in the areas where they were born and brought up, if they want to do so. We have modernised right to buy as part of our programme to encourage the development of sustainable mixed communities.
	Exploitation is not the only concern, however. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, some people who bought their homes have since found it difficult to afford the cost of maintaining them. Some of them may not have thought far enough ahead; some have been the victims of unforeseen life chances, while others may not have had access to information about the implications of home ownership.
	Several Members have contacted my ministerial colleagues to inform them that some of their constituents who have bought flats are finding it hard to pay service charges for major works such as putting a new roof on the block. The bills for such work come all at once and can be large, sometimes as much as 40,000 or more.
	Such a bill can be daunting, but we should remember that the leaseholder will have bought their property at a significant discount. Over time, its value will have grown, and the major works are likely to increase its value even further. Often the problem is one of cash flow, rather than being unable to pay. However, we have acted to ensure that information about the costs of home ownership is available to tenants who want to own their homes. A range of options is already in place to help leaseholders to pay service charge bills.
	On information, buying their home is the biggest purchase most people will ever make, so they should be able to balance the costs against the obvious benefits. Our booklet for tenants, Your Right to Buy your home, contains sections on things to consider before buying, on the costs of buying and on other regular costs of home ownership.
	Under the Housing Act 2004, landlords must give tenants both a written explanation of the key features of the right-to-buy scheme and information about the costs involved. They must be told about stamp duty, survey fees, paying off a mortgage, buying annual insurance and paying for gas, water and electricity. They must also be told about the costs of maintaining their homes, which crucially includes the service charges that the owners of leasehold flats must pay to their landlords.
	Besides having a right to information before they buy, leaseholders have a long-standing statutory right to be consulted about major works and long-term agreements, to see the documents showing service charge costs and to challenge the reasonableness of any charge or the standard of the service or work involved.
	Leaseholders can be helped to pay off large service charge bills. Landlords can offer them low-cost loans. They can extend the repayment period, or delay repayment until the property is sold. The Government meet 35 per cent. of the cost of their doing so where it exceeds 50,000 in a year. Finally, where major works are funded from specified central Government programmes, service charges must be reduced to no more than 10,000 in any five-year period.
	Leaseholders can also get free advice on the options open to them from the Leasehold Advisory Service, known as LEASE, which is an independent advice agency grant-aided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. So a lot of help is available to leaseholders.
	We have commissioned research into the impact on service charge bills of local authorities spending on ensuring that all their housing stock meets the decent homes standard by 2010. The report is being finalised and will be published in due course. We are looking into the issues that have been raised about leaseholder service charges.
	On the future, as a Government we are committed to encouraging owner occupation. The right to buy is a key element in our strategy. Where is the right to buy going? Conservative Members have called for it to be given to housing association tenants, 1 million of whommore than halfalready have the right to buy or a preserved right to buy because they have transferred with their homes from local authorities. Also to extend the right to buy to all housing association tenants would be costlyup to 300 million a yearand we have no plans to do so.
	Some people have called for right-to-buy discounts to be increased, to help even more tenants, but more generosity to tenants means more cost to the taxpayer, who must meet the difference between the price that the property would fetch on the open market and the discounted price that the tenant pays, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has mentioned.
	The Government's aim is to strike a reasonable balance between helping tenants, ensuring value for money for taxpayers and helping those who are homeless or are living in overcrowded accommodation. That is why we changed the discount rules in 1999 and in 2003, when we lowered the maximum limits in London and a few other areas in the south-east of England. Some people want us to go further and lower maximum right-to-buy discounts in other areas. My hon. Friend recently asked us to do so in areas of high demand. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning replied that the Government are keeping the position on maximum right-to-buy discounts generally under review, and I reaffirm that today. We do not rule out further changes, but they must be proportionate.
	We recognise that the right to buy does not work for everyone. For some people, part-ownership is a long-term solution to their housing needs. That is why we are introducing HomeBuyan improved range of low-cost home ownership schemesto go alongside the right to buy and the right to acquire, thus building on the success of what we have already done in partnership with the housing association sector.
	I hope that I have responded to all my hon. Friend's points. If I have not done so, I assure him that I will write to him in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.